Defence Authorities cannot selectively insist on NOC for construction beyond prescribed safety zones after planning permissions are crystallized.

The Petitioner, a developer, entered into a redevelopment agreement with Respondent No. 4 (a housing society) to redevise "Building No. 41," a dilapidated structure in Worli, Mumbai.

Between 2023 and 2025, Respondent No. 1 (MHADA) issued six successive Commencement Certificates (CC), during which the Petitioner completed the rehabilitation building for 72 members and significantly advanced the sale wing.

Although internal correspondence existed between the Navy (Respondent No. 3) and MHADA regarding the project's proximity to INS Trata, the Petitioner was only notified in July 2025.

Despite granting a final CC in August 2025 after considering the Petitioner's explanation, MHADA issued a "Stop Work Notice" on October 24, 2025, and subsequently withheld the Occupation Certificate (OC) solely for want of a Naval No Objection Certificate (NOC).

1. Whether the insistence by the Naval Authorities for an NOC regarding the Petitioner’s construction is legal and valid?

2. Whether the action of MHADA in granting successive Commencement Certificates permitting completion was valid?

3. Whether the Stop Work Notice and denial of the Occupation Certificate for want of a Naval NOC are legal?

The court applied Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to property as a human and constitutional right that cannot be restricted by mere executive fiat.

The court relied on the Works of Defence Act, 1903, as a complete code occupying the field of land-use restrictions near military sites.

The court applied the principle from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hirendra Pal Singh, holding that the supersession of older executive guidelines by a new circular obliterates the former, and merely keeping the new circular in "abeyance" does not automatically revive the extinguished ones.

It further applied Regulation 59 of the DCPR-2034, interpreting the requirement for a Defence NOC as a conjunctive condition necessitating both a request from the Defence Authority and a formal notification by the State Urban Development Department.

The Court reasoned that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Circular dated 23 December 2022 specifically superseded the 2011 guidelines and reduced the restricted radius for INS Trata to 50 meters.

Since the project is approximately 280 meters away, it fell outside the restricted zone at the time rights crystallized.

The subsequent MoD circular of 23 February 2023, which placed the 2022 guidelines in "abeyance," could not revive the dead 2011 guidelines to retrospectively invalidate construction permissions.

The Court found that MHADA, as the Planning Authority, acted validly in issuing CCs and the Petitioner had a settled expectation and crystallized rights under Article 14.

Furthermore, the Navy's "pick and choose" approach—allowing other high-rises in the same vicinity without NOCs—was deemed discriminatory and arbitrary.

Finally, the Court held that Regulation 59 of DCPR-2034 could not be used by the Navy to unilaterally foist NOC requirements without State Government notification.

The Court quashed the Stop Work Notice and directed MHADA to grant the Occupation Certificate for the rehab building and process further permissions for the sale building without insisting on a Naval NOC. Writ Petition allowed; Rule made absolute.