MHADA-authorised Executive Engineer can initiate summary evictions for redevelopment, Bombay High Court rules

The petitions concerned redevelopment of Issa Building, a dilapidated building in Mumbai, under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034.

The owners had obtained permissions, and 57 of the building’s 83 tenants or occupants had surrendered possession and executed permanent alternate accommodation agreements (PAAAs).

The petitioners, a group of occupants, challenged proceedings under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act), contending that the Executive Engineer lacked jurisdiction and that the owners had not complied with conditions in the No Objection Certificate (NOC), including requirements concerning PAAAs, area entitlement, corpus and a bank guarantee or fixed deposit.

The High Court heard the connected petitions together.

Whether proceedings under Section 95A initiated by the Executive Engineer were without jurisdiction under the MHADA Act.

Whether alleged non-compliance with NOC conditions made the Section 95A proceedings premature or unlawful, warranting interference by the Court.

Section 95A of the MHADA Act provides for summary eviction in specified redevelopment circumstances where the statutory prerequisites are met, including the requisite occupant consent and issuance of an NOC; the NOC holder must make temporary alternate accommodation available or pay rent in lieu.

Sections 2(3), 2(6), 16 and 18 define the Authority and Board and establish an administrative structure in which the Chief Officer is part of the Board’s machinery for carrying out the Act.

Section 181 concerns delegation of powers exercisable by the Authority; the Court held that it did not govern the Board’s internal assignment of functions in this case.

The Court applied Radhika George v. MHADA, holding that Section 95A is a summary mechanism, not a forum for a full adjudication of redevelopment disputes.

The Court applied Sayed Anwar Gafoor v. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner on the statutory scheme permitting functions to be exercised through authorised officers.

It distinguished Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation because the statutory framework there did not permit the authorisation at issue.

It also distinguished Javed Abdul Rahim Attar v. MHADA and Jugraj Tejraj and Sons v. Executive Engineer on their facts and the issues considered.

The Court found that the Board’s administrative order of 14 September 2022 assigned Section 95A actions to the Executive Engineer and that the Chief Officer specifically authorised the action in this case on 1 July 2026; those orders had not been challenged.

Reading Sections 16 and 18 together, the Court treated the Chief Officer as part of the Board’s administrative machinery, not as an outsider exercising an unauthorised delegation of the Board’s substantive power.

On the NOC objections, the Court accepted the authorities’ evidence that the relevant obligations arose at different stages: transit rent and corpus had been offered or deposited after refusal, while the 10% construction-cost deposit and submission of registered PAAAs were not yet due because the relevant stages had not been reached.

It therefore found no established present breach that invalidated the Section 95A action and noted the authorities’ undertaking to enforce the NOC conditions and take action in the event of non-compliance.

It found no jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice or illegality warranting relief under Article 226, and held that the Section 95A proceedings could proceed in furtherance of the sanctioned redevelopment scheme.

All writ petitions were dismissed, the Rule was discharged and there was no order as to costs; the Court expected the authorities to ensure compliance with the NOC conditions.