01Facts
MHADA allotted the petitioner an open plot at RSC-11, Charkop, Kandivali (West), and executed a registered lease deed dated 27 October 2005 after inviting offers through a public advertisement.
pp. 2–5 · ¶ 1–4Although the petitioner sought possession, MHADA did not hand over the plot.
pp. 2–5 · ¶ 1–4, 7The petitioner sought a writ directing MHADA to deliver physical possession.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 6–7MHADA opposed the petition, asserting that the plot fell within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and that the petitioner had transferred it to a third party.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 6–702Issues
i.1. Whether MHADA was required to deliver possession of the plot to the petitioner under the registered, subsisting lease deed.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–8, 11–14ii.2. Whether the asserted CRZ restrictions or alleged transfer to a third party justified MHADA’s refusal to deliver possession.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 6, 8–10, 1403Law Applied
The Court relied on the principle that a valid, subsisting lease deed executed by the land-owning authority is not a basis for that authority to withhold possession absent cancellation, rescission, or a declaration that the deed is invalid.
p. 5 · ¶ 8It also treated MHADA, as an instrumentality of the State, as unable to deprive a citizen of the benefit of a duly acquired plot through high-handed conduct.
p. 7 · ¶ 14MHADA invoked the Bombay High Court’s decision in Bombay Environment Action Group v. State of Maharashtra, WPL/3246/2004, and CRZ restrictions; however, the Court did not decide whether construction was permissible or whether the plot fell within a CRZ buffer zone.
p. 4, 7 · ¶ 6, 12, 14No statutory provision was identified as the basis of the Court’s decision.
04Reasoning
MHADA did not dispute execution of the lease deed, and the record contained no order cancelling, rescinding, or invalidating it.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–8, 12, 14The Court therefore held that MHADA could not rely on CRZ-related development restrictions to refuse possession of the open plot; construction rights and the application of CRZ regulations were separate questions not before it.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–8, 12, 14The alleged transfer to a third party was unsupported by evidence, so it did not justify withholding possession, though MHADA remained free to take appropriate action if cogent material emerged.
p. 6 · ¶ 9–1005Holding
The Court allowed the petition and directed MHADA to hand over possession of Plot No. 100, measuring 76.75 sq. m., within four weeks after the order was produced before Respondent No. 1.
pp. 7, order (i)–(ii)It expressly left the CRZ and construction-permission questions undecided.
p. 7 · ¶ 14MHADA’s post-judgment request for a stay was rejected.
p. 8 · ¶ 16Original Court PDF
Rajesh Tanaji Bachhav And Anr.vsThe Deputy Chief Officer (W) (Mhada) And 7 Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
