MHADA Executive Engineer can initiate Section 95A eviction proceedings against occupants blocking redevelopment, Bombay High Court rules

The petitioners, tenants or occupants of Issa Building, challenged proceedings under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act), initiated in connection with the building’s redevelopment under Regulation 33(7) of the DCPR 2034.

They contended that the Executive Engineer lacked authority to initiate those proceedings and that the developer had not complied with conditions in the No Objection Certificate (NOC), including requirements concerning permanent alternate accommodation agreements (PAAAs), transit rent, corpus and a bank guarantee.

The respondents maintained that the Executive Engineer had been authorised to act and that the relevant NOC obligations either had been met, offered, or were not yet due.

The High Court heard the related petitions together.

Whether proceedings initiated by the Executive Engineer under Section 95A of the MHADA Act were without jurisdiction or contrary to the Act’s statutory scheme.

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

Section 95A of the MHADA Act provides a summary mechanism for evicting occupants who refuse to vacate in specified redevelopment circumstances, subject to the statutory prerequisites and an opportunity to be heard.

Sections 2(6), 16 and 18 establish the Board’s administrative structure and recognise its Chief Officer as part of the machinery through which the Board performs its statutory functions; Section 181 concerns delegation of powers of the Authority and does not displace that structure.

The Court applied Radhika George v. MHADA, holding that Section 95A proceedings are not a forum for a full adjudication of civil or co-operative disputes.

The Court applied Sayed Anwar Gafoor v. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner on the exercise of statutory functions through authorised officers.

It distinguished Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, which concerned the absence of statutory authority for the delegation at issue there.

The Court found that the Executive Engineer had not assumed jurisdiction independently: the Board had directed that Section 95A actions be executed by that officer, and the Chief Officer had specifically authorised the action in this case.

The Court therefore rejected the contention that Section 181 barred the arrangement, reasoning that the case involved the Board’s internal administrative machinery rather than a delegation of the Authority’s powers.

On the NOC issue, it accepted the respondents’ evidence that transit rent and corpus had been offered or deposited, while certain obligations—including the 10% rehabilitation construction-cost deposit and submission of registered PAAAs—were due at later stages.

The Court concluded that the asserted outstanding obligations did not, on the material before it, invalidate the Section 95A proceedings.

It also found that the occupants had received an opportunity to be heard and that the redevelopment should not be stalled by the petitioners’ objections.

It dismissed all the writ petitions, discharged the Rule and made no order as to costs.

It also recorded the Advocate General’s assurance that MHADA would ensure compliance with the NOC conditions and take appropriate action in the event of a breach.