Executive Engineer can initiate MHADA Act eviction proceedings against occupants blocking redevelopment, Bombay High Court rules

The petitioners were occupants of Issa Building, a dilapidated building being redeveloped under Regulation 33(7) of the DCPR 2034.

The owners had obtained an MHADA no-objection certificate (NOC); approximately 57 of the building’s 83 occupants had surrendered possession and executed permanent alternate accommodation agreements (PAAAs).

The petitioners challenged proceedings under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act), including eviction notices issued by the Executive Engineer on 12 August 2026.

They argued both that the Executive Engineer lacked authority to act under Section 95A and that the owners had not complied with NOC conditions concerning PAAAs, transit rent, corpus and a bank guarantee or fixed deposit for the rehabilitation component.

The respondents maintained that the Executive Engineer had been authorized to conduct the proceedings and that the relevant NOC obligations had either been met, offered, or were due at a later stage.

1. Whether the Executive Engineer was authorized under the MHADA Act to initiate proceedings under Section 95A, or whether that power could be exercised only by the Board.

2. Whether alleged non-compliance with NOC conditions made the Section 95A proceedings premature or unlawful.

Section 95A of the MHADA Act permits summary eviction in specified redevelopment circumstances where the statutory prerequisites are met, including the required occupant consent and issuance of an NOC; the NOC holder must also provide temporary alternate accommodation or rent in lieu.

Sections 16 and 18 establish an administrative structure through which the Board carries out its functions, including through its Chief Officer and authorized officers; Section 181 concerns delegation of powers or functions of the Authority and does not displace that structure.

The principle *delegatus non potest delegare* does not prevent an authorized officer from performing functions where the statutory scheme indicates otherwise.

The Court also relied on *Radhika George v. MHADA*, which treats Section 95A as a summary process rather than a forum for full adjudication of redevelopment disputes, and *Sayed Anwar Gafoor v. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner* on the exercise of statutory functions through authorized officers.

It distinguished *Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation*, *Javed Abdul Rahim Attar v. MHADA* and *Jugraj Tejraj and Sons v. Executive Engineer* on their facts or the issues decided.

It also applied *Vasant Kheraj Bhanushali v. Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Ltd.* on the effect of consent to redevelopment.

The Court held that the Executive Engineer had not assumed jurisdiction unilaterally: the Board had issued an administrative order assigning Section 95A actions to that officer, and the Chief Officer had specifically authorized action against the occupants.

Read with Sections 16 and 18, the statutory scheme allowed the Board to act through its officers; Section 181 did not require a fresh Board resolution for each administrative step.

On the NOC challenge, the Court accepted the authorities’ evidence that transit rent and corpus had been offered or deposited with MHADA, while the 10% rehabilitation-cost deposit was required before demolition and the PAAAs before a later commencement-certificate stage.

It therefore found no present breach that invalidated the proceedings.

The owners also stated they were willing to provide rent and corpus and register PAAAs on the same terms as for other tenants; the Court relied on the authorities’ assurance that established future non-compliance would be addressed according to law.

It found no jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice or illegality warranting relief under Article 226, and held that the petitioners could not stall the sanctioned redevelopment project.

All writ petitions were dismissed, the rule was discharged, and there was no order as to costs; the authorities were expected to ensure compliance with the NOC conditions and take appropriate action in the event of a breach.