Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 489
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No……….. of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.29118 of 2024)
LAKHANI HOUSING CORPORATION PVT.
LTD. & ANR.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASTHRA & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether the e-tender issued by the Maharashtra
1
Housing and Area Development Authority in pursuance
of a Cabinet decision, followed up with a government
resolution, interferes with the contractual rights of the
appellants is the question arising in the present appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.16
16:30:55 IST
Reason:
1
MHADA
Page 1 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
3. In a writ petition filed by the appellants before the
High Court of Bombay, initially, stay was granted on the
fundamental question of jurisdiction of MHADA to
proceed with a cluster redevelopment in a land having
an extent of approximately 11.20 acres, commonly
known as ‘ Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar ’ (subject land,
herein after) which is not owned by the State and lies as
a free hold. The Division Bench of the High Court finally
dismissed the writ petition which judgment is impugned
in the present appeal.
4. On the undisputed facts, the High Court of Bombay
noticed that the land once had 25 buildings standing on
it, housing around 1200 families, the allotment having
been originally made to the refugees from Pakistan. The
buildings were 62 to 66 years’ old, standing in an
extremely dilapidated condition; classified as Category
2
C-1 by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation , which
stood demolished in the year 2019 after proper notices
were issued and proceedings taken under the BMC Act.
2
The BMC
Page 2 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
5. The appellants had approached the residents in the
said building for redevelopment of the land and as per
their claim, obtained agreements for redevelopment
from individual members. The appellants had also spent
around Rs.17.31 Crores in pursuing the initial steps for
redevelopment. However, the redevelopment project
did not fructify, according to the appellants, since the
residents did not have proper title deeds despite Sanads
being executed in their favour, between 1954 and 1987.
It was the appellants who took steps to ensure proper
conveyances, executed by the President of India, to be
issued in favour of the families; the absence of which was
the only reason for the development of land having not
been taken up. It was contended that the MHADA could
not have intervened with an e-tender based on the
government resolutions; the Government having no
rights over the land since the property was privately
owned and did not belong to the State.
6. The High Court found that the writ petition is not
maintainable, since, if at all, the recourse of the
Page 3 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
petitioner was against the individuals who were the
residents in the buildings demolished, with whom they
had agreements. It was also found that the agreements
claimed to have been executed by the individual
residents were not registered and that, in any case, it
would have to be established before a Civil Court. The
Government decision to entrust MHADA with the
development, eventually was on the request made by
the majority of the residents who agreed to the
development through the government nodal agency.
The petitioners claimed an expenditure of Rs.17 Crores
out of which Rs.9.35 Crores, expended as corpus funds
to various occupants. On an examination of the
development agreement, it was found that this would
only indicate that the corpus fund was disbursed to only
267 occupants while the total residents came to 1200. The
High Court found that the intention of the petitioner was
to mislead the Court, with half-truths, partial truths and
deliberate falsehood, that too in a writ petition which was
not maintainable . The writ petition stood dismissed.
Page 4 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
7. Before us, Mr. C. A. Sundaram, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the
nature of lands subjected to development are
categorised as free-hold, government owned properties
and slums which fall under the Slum Regulatory Authority
and MHADA. Regulation 33(9) of the Development
3
Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 deals with the
development of such lands and in so far as privately
owned lands, when the majority of the residents enter
into a development agreement with a private developer,
there cannot be a subsequent intervention by MHADA
by floating a tender to develop the very same property
on which there is an existing contract for redevelopment
with a private developer; in the present case, the
appellants herein. The majority of the residents as also
the Societies had agreed to such development in
pursuance of which considerable amounts have been
spent by the developer and the conveyances facilitated
to the residents, at the instance of the developer. The
3
The DCPR
Page 5 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
entire problem arose when an MLA wrote to the
Government regarding the development of the subject
land, which led to the Cabinet decision and the
government resolution.
8. The Government also proceeded on the wrong
assumption that the subject land belongs to the
Government and, hence, MHADA could be authorised to
carry out the redevelopment as per Regulation 33 (9) of
the DCPR. The residents and the Societies, who had
entered into development agreements with the
appellants had first objected to it, but a volte-face was
made for reasons best known to them. Presumably, on
governmental influence and coercion, with the residents
agreeing to the development by MHADA. It is
vehemently argued that this goes against the consents
issued by almost 909 out of 1200 occupants to the
appellants herein. Mr. Sundaram pointed out that the
new e-tender issued by the MHADA indicates that it is
offering 635 sq. feet of built-up area to the residents,
while the original agreement with the appellants was for
Page 6 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
providing 550 sq. feet. It is undertaken that the
appellants would provide the very same area as
promised by MHADA i.e., 635 sq. feet despite an
agreement to the contrary and this could allay any
apprehension on the part of the residents.
9. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing for the MHADA submitted that no reliance can
be placed on the unregistered agreements with
individuals. MHADA is constituted and committed to
prepare, execute, proposals, plans and projects for
housing accommodation, clearances and
redevelopment of slums in urban areas by demolition of
dangerous and dilapidated buildings and their
redevelopment through the statutory boards in terms of
the MHADA Act, 1976. It is pointed out that even
Regulation 33 (9) of the DCPR provides for the private
land holders to enter into an agreement with MHADA and
authorise development of their land at the instance of
MHADA. It is only considering the requirement for
redeveloping the subject land, where the residents were
Page 7 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
evicted as early as in the year 2019 and buildings
demolished that the Government proposes to take over
the development through its nodal agency. The mere
fact that the resolutions were taken on the basis that it is
a government land would not affect the project at all,
even if actually it is a free hold land.
10. The MHADA is authorised under Regulation 33(9)
to intervene and facilitate redevelopment within a free
hold land where the occupants consent to the same. The
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966,
requires for such redevelopment, with consent of at least
50 % of the occupants in a building and 60 % of the
cluster which is sought to be redeveloped. The
appellants, who claim to have development agreements
with the individual residents, have done pretty little in
the last few years. The evicted residents are out on the
streets and neither has the corpus fund, as agreed,
disbursed to them nor have they been given transit
accommodation or the rent as agreed upon. It is looking
at the plight of more than ten thousand individuals
Page 8 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
comprised in the 1200 families which were evicted from
the buildings, which had to be demolished, with
government intervention, MHADA was authorised to
take over the redevelopment; which is also in public
interest.
11. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the 17 out of the 25 societies, reiterated
that the residents who are the members of the Societies
are left to fend for themselves without the appellant
having complied with any of the terms of the agreement,
which in any way, have not been validly executed and
does not subsist as of now. The appellant having not
taken any legal steps to enforce their alleged rights
under the agreement and are now indirectly attempting
to thwart the redevelopment, as initiated by MHADA
through a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The attempt is to by-pass the civil
remedy and indirectly stall the e-tender and the
redevelopment of the subject land and, thus attempting
to coerce the residents to fall back upon the appellants.
Page 9 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
The other Societies represented by learned Counsel
supported the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel
and pointed out that the governmental intervention was
not by reason of a communication of the MLA; but 716 flat
owners had already written a letter to the Housing
Minister of the Government of Maharashtra on
05.09.2022, seeking intervention, long before the letter
of the MLA dated 10.01.2023.
12. The thrust of the arguments of the appellant is on
Regulation 33(9), the various categories of Cluster
Development Schemes (CDS) contemplated by the said
regulation and the nature of the agreements entered with
the appellant as a private developer. Regulation 33(9)
has been extracted in the impugned judgment and
hence, suffice it to notice that the redevelopment, as
envisaged by the DCPR, is by three modes, (i)
undertaken by MHADA or the MCGM either by
themselves or through a suitable agency, (ii)
MHADA/MCGM, jointly with land owners and/or
Cooperative Housing Societies of tenants/occupiers of
Page 10 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
buildings and/or Cooperative Housing Societies of
hutment dwellers and; (iii) where the land owners
and/or Cooperative Housing Societies independently,
by themselves carry out such development, or makes the
development through a promoter/developer.
13. As far as the first category is concerned, the
MHADA or the MCGM either by themselves or through
an agency carries out the development, presumably, on
government lands, with which we are not concerned.
Indisputably, though the government resolution speaks
of the subject land being owned by the government, it is
a free hold land on which Sanads were obtained by the
residents and later, proper conveyances were issued. In
so far as the private lands are concerned, Regulation 33
(9) specifies that development on such lands can be
either be carried out by the land owners or cooperative
housing societies themselves or through a promoter or
developer or even jointly with MHADA/MCGM. Hence,
it cannot for a moment be said that on private lands,
MHADA cannot at all enter and carry out a development.
Page 11 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
The CDS, as envisaged under the DCPR specifically
provides for the land owners or the housing societies to
jointly carry out a development on free hold lands and in
that circumstances, the e-tender issued by MHADA can
neither be faulted nor can MHADA’s initiative be termed
as without jurisdiction. As of now, the housing societies
and the residents of 25 buildings who are respondents
herein unanimously support the redevelopment initiated
by MHADA.
14. The initiative was entrusted to MHADA by the
Government, as submitted by the respondents not
merely by reason of the letter written by the MLA but
also in furtherance of a communication issued by around
716 flat owners, pointing out their travails to the Housing
Minister, Government of Maharashtra by letter dated
05.09.2022. Even otherwise, the MLA as is seen from the
communication dated 10.01.2023, produced as
Annexure A in IA No.291091 of 2024, only brought to the
notice of the Deputy Chief Minister of the State, the
difficulties faced by the constituents of his constituency;
Page 12 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
in which exists, the Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, which
cannot be termed to be with any ulterior motive. The
government resolution speaks of the said land as a
government land; obviously a mistake, but that does not
invalidate the decision taken. As is evident from
Regulation 33 (9) of the DCPR , MHADA can jointly with
the land owners or Cooperative Housing Societies carry
out the development on free hold lands. The erroneous
description of the said land i.e., as a government land,
we find to be inconsequential.
15. MHADA cannot also be said to have no jurisdiction
to implement a Cluster Development Scheme, in a free
hold land, since it is made possible as per the DCPR, if it
is carried out jointly with the land owners/ Cooperative
Housing Societies. In the present case, at the risk of
repetition, we have to emphasise that those Cooperative
Housing Societies who are parties herein, in one voice
support the intervention and initiative taken by MHADA.
16. Now, the question arises as to whether the
appellants had valid contracts, infringement of which
Page 13 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
will not be possible through an intervention made by
MHADA to carry out development of the subject land. As
admitted by the appellants the project for development
of land was first suggested by the appellants in the year
2010. The admission made by the appellants is seen from
Annexure R-5, produced in the counter affidavit filed by
Respondent Nos.5 to 20 and 23; that the redevelopment
process of the entire 25 buildings of the colony has been
initiated by the appellants since the year 2012. Annexure
R-5 is an objection addressed to M/s. Consultants
Combined Architects on the e-tender issued for
redevelopment of the Punjabi Colony in Guru Teg
Bahadur Nagar . The fact remains that despite a decade
and two years having passed, there is no construction
activity started in the subject land.
17. The appellants have asserted that they have spent
about Rs. 17 Crores which is not a matter to be merely
asserted on affidavit and requires substantiation by
proper evidence adduced in a civil suit. Here, it is also
pertinent that the Division Bench of the Bombay High
Page 14 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
Court found that even if the expenditure of Rs.9.5 Crores,
disbursed as corpus fund is accepted, looking at the
amount entitled to each of the occupants, only 217
persons would have been paid the said amount out of a
total of 1200 persons.
18. In this context, we refer to Annexure P3, which is
stated to be the resolutions of various societies,
appointing the appellant as the developer. The appellant
was preferred from among three bidders for reason of
the higher area offered per flat, the rent of Rs.15,000/-
per month offered for alternate residential arrangement
and Rs.3,50,000/- per member, offered as corpus fund.
The appellant does not have a case that either the corpus
fund was paid to all the occupants or the rent disbursed
on monthly basis for an alternative residential
accommodation. In so far as the floor area is concerned,
as we noticed, there is no construction on the land as of
now. It is in this context, the MLA of the constituency in
which the colony is located, and the majority of the
residents of the 25 buildings, who were evicted by
Page 15 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
demolition of the buildings in 2019, approached the
government for an alternative arrangement, so that they
can receive back, and shift into their own homes in, their
free hold land.
19. In so far as the appellants’ case is concerned, the
appellants rely on the agreements entered into with
various individual land owners and the permission
obtained from some Societies. That by formulation of
such Housing Societies, the majority decision would
prevail cannot be disputed. The agreements executed
with the land owners are said to be unregistered
agreements, unenforceable in the eyes of law. We
would however not make any declaration on that aspect
since our finding, as found by the High Court of Bombay,
is that the petitioners’ remedy is not under Article 226.
The appellants may have a remedy of specific
performance which the appellants have not at all
pursued as of now. In the guise of challenging the e-
tender, the appellants have been attempting to enforce
contractual rights as against the individual occupants
Page 16 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
and also against the Societies. We make this observation
without deciding on the validity or invalidity of such
agreements; which the respondents asserted to be
unenforceable. We have already found that the
expenses asserted by the appellant in pursuing the
agreements have not been substantiated in the writ
proceedings, nor have they established that it is by their
intervention the conveyances were facilitated. The
appellant may have a remedy against the individuals or
the Societies but the writ petition cannot be maintained
as against the e-tender issued by the MHADA, especially
when the Societies in one voice support the development
initiative of MHADA; which is a joint venture as permitted
by the DCPR.
20. The appellants have no locus standi to challenge
the e-tender in a writ proceeding, when the
redevelopment of the said land is carried out as a Cluster
Development Scheme under the DCPR, which enables
MHADA, jointly with the land owners/Cooperative
Societies to carry out such development. The appellants
Page 17 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
have failed to show us any vested right to carry out the
development, especially when there is not even a
registered agreement with any individual or the
Societies. The very claim of the appellants based on the
resolutions purportedly of the Societies clearly indicate
that the promises made by the appellant were not
complied with and the redevelopment also was not
carried out within the time stipulated, leading to breach
of any such agreement; if at all such agreements were
valid and enforceable.
21. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the
appeal, and dismiss it.
22. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
.……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.
Page 18 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No……….. of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.29118 of 2024)
LAKHANI HOUSING CORPORATION PVT.
LTD. & ANR.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASTHRA & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether the e-tender issued by the Maharashtra
1
Housing and Area Development Authority in pursuance
of a Cabinet decision, followed up with a government
resolution, interferes with the contractual rights of the
appellants is the question arising in the present appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.16
16:30:55 IST
Reason:
1
MHADA
Page 1 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
3. In a writ petition filed by the appellants before the
High Court of Bombay, initially, stay was granted on the
fundamental question of jurisdiction of MHADA to
proceed with a cluster redevelopment in a land having
an extent of approximately 11.20 acres, commonly
known as ‘ Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar ’ (subject land,
herein after) which is not owned by the State and lies as
a free hold. The Division Bench of the High Court finally
dismissed the writ petition which judgment is impugned
in the present appeal.
4. On the undisputed facts, the High Court of Bombay
noticed that the land once had 25 buildings standing on
it, housing around 1200 families, the allotment having
been originally made to the refugees from Pakistan. The
buildings were 62 to 66 years’ old, standing in an
extremely dilapidated condition; classified as Category
2
C-1 by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation , which
stood demolished in the year 2019 after proper notices
were issued and proceedings taken under the BMC Act.
2
The BMC
Page 2 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
5. The appellants had approached the residents in the
said building for redevelopment of the land and as per
their claim, obtained agreements for redevelopment
from individual members. The appellants had also spent
around Rs.17.31 Crores in pursuing the initial steps for
redevelopment. However, the redevelopment project
did not fructify, according to the appellants, since the
residents did not have proper title deeds despite Sanads
being executed in their favour, between 1954 and 1987.
It was the appellants who took steps to ensure proper
conveyances, executed by the President of India, to be
issued in favour of the families; the absence of which was
the only reason for the development of land having not
been taken up. It was contended that the MHADA could
not have intervened with an e-tender based on the
government resolutions; the Government having no
rights over the land since the property was privately
owned and did not belong to the State.
6. The High Court found that the writ petition is not
maintainable, since, if at all, the recourse of the
Page 3 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
petitioner was against the individuals who were the
residents in the buildings demolished, with whom they
had agreements. It was also found that the agreements
claimed to have been executed by the individual
residents were not registered and that, in any case, it
would have to be established before a Civil Court. The
Government decision to entrust MHADA with the
development, eventually was on the request made by
the majority of the residents who agreed to the
development through the government nodal agency.
The petitioners claimed an expenditure of Rs.17 Crores
out of which Rs.9.35 Crores, expended as corpus funds
to various occupants. On an examination of the
development agreement, it was found that this would
only indicate that the corpus fund was disbursed to only
267 occupants while the total residents came to 1200. The
High Court found that the intention of the petitioner was
to mislead the Court, with half-truths, partial truths and
deliberate falsehood, that too in a writ petition which was
not maintainable . The writ petition stood dismissed.
Page 4 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
7. Before us, Mr. C. A. Sundaram, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the
nature of lands subjected to development are
categorised as free-hold, government owned properties
and slums which fall under the Slum Regulatory Authority
and MHADA. Regulation 33(9) of the Development
3
Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 deals with the
development of such lands and in so far as privately
owned lands, when the majority of the residents enter
into a development agreement with a private developer,
there cannot be a subsequent intervention by MHADA
by floating a tender to develop the very same property
on which there is an existing contract for redevelopment
with a private developer; in the present case, the
appellants herein. The majority of the residents as also
the Societies had agreed to such development in
pursuance of which considerable amounts have been
spent by the developer and the conveyances facilitated
to the residents, at the instance of the developer. The
3
The DCPR
Page 5 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
entire problem arose when an MLA wrote to the
Government regarding the development of the subject
land, which led to the Cabinet decision and the
government resolution.
8. The Government also proceeded on the wrong
assumption that the subject land belongs to the
Government and, hence, MHADA could be authorised to
carry out the redevelopment as per Regulation 33 (9) of
the DCPR. The residents and the Societies, who had
entered into development agreements with the
appellants had first objected to it, but a volte-face was
made for reasons best known to them. Presumably, on
governmental influence and coercion, with the residents
agreeing to the development by MHADA. It is
vehemently argued that this goes against the consents
issued by almost 909 out of 1200 occupants to the
appellants herein. Mr. Sundaram pointed out that the
new e-tender issued by the MHADA indicates that it is
offering 635 sq. feet of built-up area to the residents,
while the original agreement with the appellants was for
Page 6 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
providing 550 sq. feet. It is undertaken that the
appellants would provide the very same area as
promised by MHADA i.e., 635 sq. feet despite an
agreement to the contrary and this could allay any
apprehension on the part of the residents.
9. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing for the MHADA submitted that no reliance can
be placed on the unregistered agreements with
individuals. MHADA is constituted and committed to
prepare, execute, proposals, plans and projects for
housing accommodation, clearances and
redevelopment of slums in urban areas by demolition of
dangerous and dilapidated buildings and their
redevelopment through the statutory boards in terms of
the MHADA Act, 1976. It is pointed out that even
Regulation 33 (9) of the DCPR provides for the private
land holders to enter into an agreement with MHADA and
authorise development of their land at the instance of
MHADA. It is only considering the requirement for
redeveloping the subject land, where the residents were
Page 7 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
evicted as early as in the year 2019 and buildings
demolished that the Government proposes to take over
the development through its nodal agency. The mere
fact that the resolutions were taken on the basis that it is
a government land would not affect the project at all,
even if actually it is a free hold land.
10. The MHADA is authorised under Regulation 33(9)
to intervene and facilitate redevelopment within a free
hold land where the occupants consent to the same. The
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966,
requires for such redevelopment, with consent of at least
50 % of the occupants in a building and 60 % of the
cluster which is sought to be redeveloped. The
appellants, who claim to have development agreements
with the individual residents, have done pretty little in
the last few years. The evicted residents are out on the
streets and neither has the corpus fund, as agreed,
disbursed to them nor have they been given transit
accommodation or the rent as agreed upon. It is looking
at the plight of more than ten thousand individuals
Page 8 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
comprised in the 1200 families which were evicted from
the buildings, which had to be demolished, with
government intervention, MHADA was authorised to
take over the redevelopment; which is also in public
interest.
11. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the 17 out of the 25 societies, reiterated
that the residents who are the members of the Societies
are left to fend for themselves without the appellant
having complied with any of the terms of the agreement,
which in any way, have not been validly executed and
does not subsist as of now. The appellant having not
taken any legal steps to enforce their alleged rights
under the agreement and are now indirectly attempting
to thwart the redevelopment, as initiated by MHADA
through a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The attempt is to by-pass the civil
remedy and indirectly stall the e-tender and the
redevelopment of the subject land and, thus attempting
to coerce the residents to fall back upon the appellants.
Page 9 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
The other Societies represented by learned Counsel
supported the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel
and pointed out that the governmental intervention was
not by reason of a communication of the MLA; but 716 flat
owners had already written a letter to the Housing
Minister of the Government of Maharashtra on
05.09.2022, seeking intervention, long before the letter
of the MLA dated 10.01.2023.
12. The thrust of the arguments of the appellant is on
Regulation 33(9), the various categories of Cluster
Development Schemes (CDS) contemplated by the said
regulation and the nature of the agreements entered with
the appellant as a private developer. Regulation 33(9)
has been extracted in the impugned judgment and
hence, suffice it to notice that the redevelopment, as
envisaged by the DCPR, is by three modes, (i)
undertaken by MHADA or the MCGM either by
themselves or through a suitable agency, (ii)
MHADA/MCGM, jointly with land owners and/or
Cooperative Housing Societies of tenants/occupiers of
Page 10 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
buildings and/or Cooperative Housing Societies of
hutment dwellers and; (iii) where the land owners
and/or Cooperative Housing Societies independently,
by themselves carry out such development, or makes the
development through a promoter/developer.
13. As far as the first category is concerned, the
MHADA or the MCGM either by themselves or through
an agency carries out the development, presumably, on
government lands, with which we are not concerned.
Indisputably, though the government resolution speaks
of the subject land being owned by the government, it is
a free hold land on which Sanads were obtained by the
residents and later, proper conveyances were issued. In
so far as the private lands are concerned, Regulation 33
(9) specifies that development on such lands can be
either be carried out by the land owners or cooperative
housing societies themselves or through a promoter or
developer or even jointly with MHADA/MCGM. Hence,
it cannot for a moment be said that on private lands,
MHADA cannot at all enter and carry out a development.
Page 11 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
The CDS, as envisaged under the DCPR specifically
provides for the land owners or the housing societies to
jointly carry out a development on free hold lands and in
that circumstances, the e-tender issued by MHADA can
neither be faulted nor can MHADA’s initiative be termed
as without jurisdiction. As of now, the housing societies
and the residents of 25 buildings who are respondents
herein unanimously support the redevelopment initiated
by MHADA.
14. The initiative was entrusted to MHADA by the
Government, as submitted by the respondents not
merely by reason of the letter written by the MLA but
also in furtherance of a communication issued by around
716 flat owners, pointing out their travails to the Housing
Minister, Government of Maharashtra by letter dated
05.09.2022. Even otherwise, the MLA as is seen from the
communication dated 10.01.2023, produced as
Annexure A in IA No.291091 of 2024, only brought to the
notice of the Deputy Chief Minister of the State, the
difficulties faced by the constituents of his constituency;
Page 12 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
in which exists, the Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, which
cannot be termed to be with any ulterior motive. The
government resolution speaks of the said land as a
government land; obviously a mistake, but that does not
invalidate the decision taken. As is evident from
Regulation 33 (9) of the DCPR , MHADA can jointly with
the land owners or Cooperative Housing Societies carry
out the development on free hold lands. The erroneous
description of the said land i.e., as a government land,
we find to be inconsequential.
15. MHADA cannot also be said to have no jurisdiction
to implement a Cluster Development Scheme, in a free
hold land, since it is made possible as per the DCPR, if it
is carried out jointly with the land owners/ Cooperative
Housing Societies. In the present case, at the risk of
repetition, we have to emphasise that those Cooperative
Housing Societies who are parties herein, in one voice
support the intervention and initiative taken by MHADA.
16. Now, the question arises as to whether the
appellants had valid contracts, infringement of which
Page 13 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
will not be possible through an intervention made by
MHADA to carry out development of the subject land. As
admitted by the appellants the project for development
of land was first suggested by the appellants in the year
2010. The admission made by the appellants is seen from
Annexure R-5, produced in the counter affidavit filed by
Respondent Nos.5 to 20 and 23; that the redevelopment
process of the entire 25 buildings of the colony has been
initiated by the appellants since the year 2012. Annexure
R-5 is an objection addressed to M/s. Consultants
Combined Architects on the e-tender issued for
redevelopment of the Punjabi Colony in Guru Teg
Bahadur Nagar . The fact remains that despite a decade
and two years having passed, there is no construction
activity started in the subject land.
17. The appellants have asserted that they have spent
about Rs. 17 Crores which is not a matter to be merely
asserted on affidavit and requires substantiation by
proper evidence adduced in a civil suit. Here, it is also
pertinent that the Division Bench of the Bombay High
Page 14 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
Court found that even if the expenditure of Rs.9.5 Crores,
disbursed as corpus fund is accepted, looking at the
amount entitled to each of the occupants, only 217
persons would have been paid the said amount out of a
total of 1200 persons.
18. In this context, we refer to Annexure P3, which is
stated to be the resolutions of various societies,
appointing the appellant as the developer. The appellant
was preferred from among three bidders for reason of
the higher area offered per flat, the rent of Rs.15,000/-
per month offered for alternate residential arrangement
and Rs.3,50,000/- per member, offered as corpus fund.
The appellant does not have a case that either the corpus
fund was paid to all the occupants or the rent disbursed
on monthly basis for an alternative residential
accommodation. In so far as the floor area is concerned,
as we noticed, there is no construction on the land as of
now. It is in this context, the MLA of the constituency in
which the colony is located, and the majority of the
residents of the 25 buildings, who were evicted by
Page 15 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
demolition of the buildings in 2019, approached the
government for an alternative arrangement, so that they
can receive back, and shift into their own homes in, their
free hold land.
19. In so far as the appellants’ case is concerned, the
appellants rely on the agreements entered into with
various individual land owners and the permission
obtained from some Societies. That by formulation of
such Housing Societies, the majority decision would
prevail cannot be disputed. The agreements executed
with the land owners are said to be unregistered
agreements, unenforceable in the eyes of law. We
would however not make any declaration on that aspect
since our finding, as found by the High Court of Bombay,
is that the petitioners’ remedy is not under Article 226.
The appellants may have a remedy of specific
performance which the appellants have not at all
pursued as of now. In the guise of challenging the e-
tender, the appellants have been attempting to enforce
contractual rights as against the individual occupants
Page 16 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
and also against the Societies. We make this observation
without deciding on the validity or invalidity of such
agreements; which the respondents asserted to be
unenforceable. We have already found that the
expenses asserted by the appellant in pursuing the
agreements have not been substantiated in the writ
proceedings, nor have they established that it is by their
intervention the conveyances were facilitated. The
appellant may have a remedy against the individuals or
the Societies but the writ petition cannot be maintained
as against the e-tender issued by the MHADA, especially
when the Societies in one voice support the development
initiative of MHADA; which is a joint venture as permitted
by the DCPR.
20. The appellants have no locus standi to challenge
the e-tender in a writ proceeding, when the
redevelopment of the said land is carried out as a Cluster
Development Scheme under the DCPR, which enables
MHADA, jointly with the land owners/Cooperative
Societies to carry out such development. The appellants
Page 17 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024
have failed to show us any vested right to carry out the
development, especially when there is not even a
registered agreement with any individual or the
Societies. The very claim of the appellants based on the
resolutions purportedly of the Societies clearly indicate
that the promises made by the appellant were not
complied with and the redevelopment also was not
carried out within the time stipulated, leading to breach
of any such agreement; if at all such agreements were
valid and enforceable.
21. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the
appeal, and dismiss it.
22. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
.……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.
Page 18 of 18
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.29118 of 2024