MHADA may authorize Executive Engineers to 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 DCPR 2034.

Of 83 occupants, approximately 57 had surrendered possession and executed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAAs); the petitioners were among the occupants challenging proceedings under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act).

They contended that the developer had not complied with specified conditions in the No Objection Certificate (NOC), including requirements relating to PAAAs, area entitlement, corpus and a bank guarantee or fixed deposit, and that the eviction action was therefore premature.

They also argued that the Executive Engineer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 95A.

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

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

Section 95A of the MHADA Act provides a summary-eviction mechanism in specified redevelopment cases where the required occupant consent and NOC have been obtained; its proviso requires the NOC holder to provide temporary alternate accommodation or rent in lieu.

Sections 2(3), 2(6), 16 and 18 establish the statutory roles of MHADA, the Boards and their officers, including the Chief Officer, as part of the machinery for carrying out the Act.

Section 181 concerns delegation of powers or functions of MHADA and does not require every administrative or executive act of a Board to be treated as a separate delegation.

The Court applied Radhika George v. MHADA, which characterizes Section 95A proceedings as summary rather than a forum for full adjudication of redevelopment disputes.

Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, on the principle that statutory discretion ordinarily cannot be sub-delegated absent contrary statutory indications.

The Court held that the Chief Officer was an integral part of the Board’s administrative machinery and that Sections 16 and 18 permitted the Board to act through its officers.

The Executive Engineer had been directed to execute Section 95A actions by a Board administrative order and was specifically authorized by the Chief Officer in this case; those orders had not been challenged.

The Court therefore found no impermissible delegation under Section 181.

On the NOC conditions, it accepted the authorities’ evidence that the conditions operated at different stages: transit rent and corpus had been offered and deposited with MHADA after non-acceptance, while the 10% rehabilitation construction-cost deposit was due before demolition, which had not commenced.

In those circumstances, the Court found no present breach warranting the invalidation of the Section 95A action and accepted the undertaking that the authorities would enforce the NOC conditions and act on any established non-compliance.

It found no jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice or illegality in the proceedings under Section 95A, and held that the alleged non-compliance with NOC conditions did not, on the material before it, make the proceedings premature or invalid.

All writ petitions were dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and there was no order as to costs; the Court expected the authorities to enforce the NOC conditions in letter and spirit.