MHADA Executive Engineer can initiate redevelopment eviction proceedings under Section 95A when authorised, Bombay HC 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 building had 83 occupants; approximately 57 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), including eviction notices dated 12 August 2026.

They alleged that the developers had not complied with conditions in the No Objection Certificate (NOC), including requirements concerning PAAAs, transit arrangements, corpus and a rehabilitation-construction-cost deposit.

Whether the Executive Engineer could initiate proceedings under Section 95A when the statutory power is conferred on the Board, or whether doing so was an impermissible delegation or sub-delegation

Whether alleged non-compliance with NOC conditions rendered the Section 95A proceedings premature or illegal

Section 95A of the MHADA Act provides for summary eviction in specified redevelopment circumstances where the statutory prerequisites are met, including the required occupier consent and an NOC, and requires the NOC holder to provide temporary alternate accommodation or rent in lieu.

Sections 16 and 18 establish the Act’s administrative structure, identify relevant authorities—including Board Chief Officers—and provide for the Board’s functions to be carried out through its officers.

Section 181 concerns delegation of powers exercisable by the Authority and does not, in the Court’s view, govern the Board’s internal assignment of functions to its officers.

The principle delegatus non potest delegare does not bar an officer from acting where the statutory scheme and the Board’s authorization permit it.

The Court also relied on Radhika George v. MHADA (2012) 5 Mh.L.J. 229, Sayed Anwar Gafoor v. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner (2010 SCC OnLine Bom 225), Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (1994) 5 SCC 346, Javed Abdul Rahim Attar v. MHADA (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2759), and Jugraj Tejraj and Sons v. Executive Engineer, E-1 Division, MBR and R Board (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3392).

The Court held that the Executive Engineer had not assumed jurisdiction on his own: the Board had issued an administrative order assigning Section 95A actions to him, and the Board’s Chief Officer had specifically authorized action in this case.

Sections 16 and 18 supported the Board’s use of its administrative machinery; Section 181 did not require a separate delegation of the Board’s substantive power.

On the NOC issue, the Court accepted the authorities’ evidence that the relevant conditions applied at different stages: transit rent and corpus had been offered or deposited, while the 10% rehabilitation-cost deposit and execution of PAAAs were due at later stages.

It therefore found no present NOC breach that invalidated the Section 95A proceedings.

The developers’ undertaking to provide the relevant benefits and the Advocate General’s assurance that established non-compliance would prompt action also informed the Court’s conclusion.

It found no jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice or other illegality warranting relief under Article 226.

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 and to act in the event of any breach.