In a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Amit Borkar on 10 June 2026 in Writ Petition No. 1736 of 2020 (with connected interim applications), the Court allowed the petition filed by Bagasarwala Property LLP and restored the validity of the sanction granted on 24 May 2018.

Background of the Transaction

The property belongs to a Public Trust (Respondent No. 3). It had a historical lease from 1917 and assignment in 1932. The Trust terminated the previous lessee’s rights via a 2016 notice. In 2018, the Trust obtained Charity Commissioner’s permission to grant a 29-year lease to Bagasarwala Property LLP, along with renewal rights and an option to purchase reversionary rights.

Following sanction, the lease deed was executed on 18 September 2018, the petitioner purchased reversionary rights through a conveyance deed, and a Change Report deleting the property from Trust records was accepted in October 2018.

Heirs of the earlier assignee (Vinod Srikrishna Poddar and Vivek Vinod Poddar) challenged the deal under Section 36(2), alleging suppression of the termination notice, lack of transparency in the advertisement, inadequate valuation, and that the Trust lacked authority due to ongoing tenancy claims.

The Joint Charity Commissioner accepted these pleas in the order dated 29 January 2020, cancelled the sanction, and directed the trustees to refund ₹6.53 crore plus rent and restore the property in Trust records within 180 days.

Court’s Key Reasoning on Section 36(2)

Justice Borkar explained the narrow and restricted scope of revocation powers under Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act:

• Revocation is not an appellate review of the original sanction. The Charity Commissioner cannot re-examine the wisdom, necessity, valuation, or desirability of a transaction once sanction is granted.
• After execution of the conveyance deed, revocation is permissible only on the ground of fraud practised upon the authority before granting sanction.
• Allegations of fraud must be pleaded with specific particulars and proved with clear evidence. Mere omissions (such as not attaching one termination notice) or deficiencies in advertisement do not constitute fraud when the Commissioner was already aware of disputes, encumbrances, and the “as is where is” condition of the property.
• The original 2018 sanction order showed that the Charity Commissioner had considered pending litigations, earlier leases, structural condition, and valuation by a government-approved valuer.
• Issues of tenancy validity, ownership of structures, and title disputes cannot be adjudicated in Section 36(2) proceedings — they must be decided in appropriate civil or tenancy forums.
• Valuation differences or claims of “haste” do not amount to fraud. The law protects the finality of completed transactions approved under the Act.

The Court held that the 2020 revocation order travelled beyond statutory limits and effectively converted revocation proceedings into a merits review, which is impermissible.

Operative Directions

The High Court:

• Quashed the impugned order dated 29 January 2020.
• Declared that the sanction dated 24 May 2018 continues to remain valid and operative.
• Set aside all directions for refund of money and restoration of the property in Trust records.
• Explicitly clarified that the judgment does not decide any title, tenancy, leasehold rights, ownership of structures, or other civil claims between the parties. All such disputes remain open for adjudication in proper forums.
• Rejected the request for stay of the judgment.
• Made no order as to costs.

Significance for Real Estate & Trusts

This ruling is important for developers, investors, and public trusts dealing with charity properties, cessed buildings, or redevelopment projects in Mumbai. It strengthens legal certainty for transactions that have received prior sanction and reached completion, while limiting the Charity Commissioner’s power to reopen deals without strong evidence of fraud.

The judgment reinforces the protective intent of Section 36 while preventing its misuse as a tool to unsettle concluded deals on grounds of subsequent dissatisfaction or rival claims.

Also Read: Tenant’s New Flat in Redevelopment Taxed?

The post Bombay HC Upholds ₹6.53 Cr Trust Deal: Revocation Only on Proof of Fraud appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Amit Borkar, in his order pronounced on 7 May 2026, allowed the writ petition filed by Vishal T. Lathia and other members of the Managing Committee of Nensey Cottage Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, located at Sant Dyaneshwar Marg, Borivali (East). The court set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (R-North Ward), and the Divisional Joint Registrar, terming the action as a “colourable exercise of power” influenced by external political pressure.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy arose when the society, which had secured 85% member consent for redevelopment and appointed a developer, faced opposition from a section of members. These members, instead of approaching the appropriate forums, routed their grievances through a local Member of Legislative Council (MLC) belonging to the same political party as one of the complainants, Mr. Sudhir Hattangadi.

On 26 August 2025, the MLC wrote to the Deputy Registrar. On the same day, the Deputy Registrar issued a show cause notice. Subsequently, on 27 November 2025, the Deputy Registrar passed an order under Section 75(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, disqualifying the managing committee members for two years (later reduced to six months), citing non-submission of Audit Rectification Reports for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Later, on 20 January 2026, an Administrator was appointed under Section 77A(1)(b-1), and one of the complainants was made part of the board. The bank accounts of the society were also frozen.

High Court’s Key Observations

Justice Borkar observed that the petitioners had submitted clear documentary evidence — letters dated 25 September 2023 and 10 September 2024 with official acknowledgements from the Deputy Registrar’s office — proving that the audit rectification reports and accounts were duly submitted. However, both the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar failed to consider this material and passed orders mechanically.

The court noted that the entire proceedings were triggered by a politically motivated complaint. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of M.P. vs. Sanjay Nagayach (2013), Justice Borkar held that statutory authorities like the Registrar must function independently and cannot act under external pressure or political influence.

The judge remarked that the “chain of events” — complaint to the MLC, immediate letter from the MLC, and swift action by the Deputy Registrar on the same day — created a strong impression that the authority did not apply its mind independently. The court described this as a colourable exercise of power.

The appointment of the Administrator was also set aside as it was based on the flawed disqualification order. The court further criticised the use of the urgency proviso under Section 77A without recording valid reasons and noted the conflict of interest in appointing a complainant as part of the Administrator board.

Relief Granted and Directions Issued

The High Court passed the following directions:

• All impugned orders dated 27.11.2025, 20.01.2026, and 15.04.2026 stand quashed and set aside.
• The disqualification of the petitioners is cancelled.
• The original Managing Committee stands restored forthwith.
• The Administrator must immediately hand over charge, records, and documents to the restored committee.
• The society’s bank accounts shall be restored to the Managing Committee.

In a significant direction, the court ordered the Secretary, Co-operation Department, to examine the conduct of the Deputy Registrar (who passed the original orders) and the Divisional Joint Registrar. The State Government has been directed to call for their explanations and decide on disciplinary action within three months. A compliance affidavit must be filed in the High Court.

The request for stay of the judgment made by Respondent No. 12 was rejected by the court.

Significance of the Order

This judgment sends a strong message against political interference in the functioning of cooperative housing societies, especially in redevelopment matters. It reiterates that democratically elected bodies cannot be removed casually on the basis of politically motivated complaints without independent application of mind by statutory authorities.

The matter has been listed for compliance on 10 August 2026.

Also Read: Bombay HC Ends 20-Year Battle, Orders Eviction from Prime Bandra Plot

The post Bombay High Court Orders Probe Against Deputy Registrar Over Political Influence in Coop Society appeared first on Square Feat India.

The recent controversy involving IAS officer Sanjeev Jaiswal at the Motilal Nagar public meeting has sharply divided public opinion in Mumbai. The episode is being viewed through multiple lenses, sparking debate not just about individual conduct but also about deeper issues of governance, language, and accountability in urban redevelopment projects.

The Divided Opinions

One section believes the protester was out of line—especially when the rehabilitation package on offer is highly favourable. Reports suggest that tenants occupying around 260 sq ft are being offered homes as large as 1,600 sq ft, making the opposition appear disproportionate.

Others, however, feel the IAS officer went too far. Their argument is simple: regardless of provocation, a senior public servant is expected to maintain composure. The tone and language used in response to a citizen holding a protest placard, they argue, crossed the limits of acceptable conduct in a public forum.

Political voices have now entered the debate, accusing the officer of overstepping boundaries. The result is a polarised Mumbai—one side insisting protesters must stay “within limits,” the other demanding the same from those in authority.

What is the Real “Limit”?

In a democracy, citizens have the right to protest peacefully. At the same time, such protests should ideally respect local sensitivities, including language and decorum.

However, the burden of restraint is not equal.

Government officers represent the state. They are expected to uphold a higher standard of conduct—marked by dignity, patience, and emotional control—even in challenging situations.

When either side fails to maintain this balance, confrontations like the one at Motilal Nagar become almost inevitable. The real issue, therefore, is not who crossed the line—but why the system allowed the situation to reach that point.

The Bigger Governance Vacuum

Beyond the immediate clash, the incident exposes a deeper institutional problem within MHADA.

For years, key leadership positions have remained vacant:

• MHADA President (the apex political head)
• MHADA Mumbai Board Chairman

These are not redundant posts. They exist precisely to bridge the gap between bureaucracy and public sentiment.

Had either of these positions been filled, it is highly likely that a political leader—not a bureaucrat—would have chaired such a sensitive public meeting.

Why the Long Delay in Appointments?

This raises a fundamental question for successive Maharashtra governments:

If these positions are so unimportant that the system can function without them for years, then they should be abolished altogether.

But if they serve a real purpose—bringing political accountability and public sensitivity into governance—then why have they remained vacant since 2019?

Across both the previous and current regimes, the failure to appoint individuals to these roles reflects a concerning lack of administrative priority.

This prolonged vacuum has consequences:

• Increased pressure on bureaucrats
• Reduced political accountability
• Greater disconnect between policy decisions and public sentiment

The Way Forward

Incidents like Motilal Nagar are not inevitable—they are preventable.

First, the government must immediately fill vacant leadership positions within MHADA. These roles exist for a reason and cannot remain symbolic placeholders.

Second, there is a need for clear guidelines governing public meetings—especially those involving redevelopment and rehabilitation. This should include protocols around protest management, communication standards, and acceptable conduct from both officials and citizens.

Finally, there must be a renewed emphasis on mutual respect:

• Citizens should protest constructively
• Officials must remember they are public servants, not authority figures above scrutiny

Conclusion

The Motilal Nagar episode is not just about one confrontation—it is a symptom of a larger governance gap.

An over-reliance on bureaucrats for politically sensitive roles, combined with a persistent leadership vacuum in key housing bodies, creates the perfect conditions for such conflicts.

The Maharashtra government must decide:
Either strengthen institutions through timely appointments—or accept that such controversies will continue to surface.

Because in the end, this is not just about one incident. It is about whether governance can truly bridge the gap between policy and people.

Also Read: Motilal Nagar Residents Oppose Adani, Claim MVA’s 2021 GR Favoured Developer Over Residents

The post Could We Have Avoided the Friday Motilal Nagar Incident? A Governance Failure Beyond One Clash appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Redevelopment Connection

The property, located in the premium tower “Parishram by Rustomjee,” was allotted to Zinta under a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement. The actress was an original member of the Pali Hill Parishram Premises Co-operative Housing Society, having owned a flat in the old building since 1999.

Following a redevelopment agreement between the society and developers (now Keystone Realtors/Rustomjee), the old structure was demolished to make way for the new luxury tower. Zinta was officially handed possession of her new 11th-floor suite on April 30, 2025, after the project received its occupancy certificate.

Property Layout and Amenities

The sold premises, identified as Flat No. 1101, features a spacious carpet area of 1,771 square feet (approximately 164.52 square meters). The deal also includes three dedicated car parking spaces (numbered 122, 123, and 130) situated at Podium Level 4 of the building.

Financial Details and New Owners

The apartment was purchased for a total consideration of ₹18.50 crore. The new owners are Mrs. Priya Rajeev Nagar and Mr. Rajeev Yogesh Nagar, both U.S. citizens of Indian origin. As part of the registration process, a substantial stamp duty of ₹1.11 crore was paid to the state treasury, along with a registration fee of ₹30,000.

This latest transaction follows a similar move by the actress in November of last year, when she sold another apartment located on the same floor of the “Parishram” building.

Also Read: SHOCKING: Preity Zinta Takes ₹2.93 Crore Hit on Bandra Luxury Flat – Is Mumbai’s Property Party Finally Over?

The post Preity Zinta Sells Luxury Bandra Home Received Under Redevelopment for ₹18.50 Crore appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Kamal Khata delivered the verdict on November 4, 2025, while dismissing multiple appeals filed by Satish Inamdar and Swapna Inamdar, who had purchased flats in a redevelopment project at Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), initiated by developer Amogh Sawant.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around redevelopment of a MHADA-leased plot (Survey No. 229 & 267, CTS No. 6 part) belonging to Nehru Nagar Vidyut Vilas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The Society had earlier appointed Amogh Sawant, sole proprietor of M/s Adit Enterprises, as its developer under a 2008 development agreement.

Over time, several third-party buyers entered into agreements, MoUs, or allotment letters with Sawant for the free-sale flats in the project. However, in 2015, the Society terminated his development rights and subsequently appointed Kabra Infrastructure and Developers LLP as the new developer. The arbitration award in 2022 upheld the termination and dismissed Sawant’s counterclaim.

The flat purchasers then approached the court, arguing that they had paid substantial amounts and held valid sale agreements executed when the earlier development agreement and power of attorney were still in force. They sought to restrain the Society and the new developer from demolishing or constructing the building without recognizing their rights.

Court’s Findings

Justice Khata observed that the question before the Court was whether third-party purchasers could assert rights through a developer whose appointment was lawfully terminated.

The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and had been settled through a series of prior judgments including:

• Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. D.N. Nagar CHS Union Ltd. (2014)
• Goregaon Pearl CHS vs. Dr. Seema Mahadev Paryekar (2019)
• Deepak Prabhakar Thakoor vs. MHADA (2023)
• Kapilkunj CHS vs. State of Maharashtra (2023)
• Tuvin Constructions LLP vs. State of Maharashtra (2025)

All these cases reaffirmed that once a society terminates a development agreement, flat purchasers claiming through that developer lose all derivative rights. The Society cannot be treated as a “promoter” under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), nor can the new developer be held liable for sales made by the terminated developer.

The Court clarified that such buyers’ remedies, if any, lie only against the erstwhile developer, not the Society or the new developer.

Key Legal Principles Highlighted

1. No Privity of Contract: Purchasers of flats through the terminated developer have no direct contractual relationship with the Society.
2. Society Not a Promoter: As the landowner, the Society cannot be saddled with statutory promoter obligations under MOFA.
3. Developer’s Termination Valid: Once the arbitration award upholding the termination becomes final, it binds all parties claiming through that developer.
4. Buyers’ Remedies Limited to Damages: The only legal recourse available to such buyers is to seek damages or recovery from the original developer.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that homebuyers purchasing from a developer whose contract is later terminated cannot claim rights in the Society’s property. The Court emphasized that redevelopment primarily exists to rehabilitate society members and cannot be obstructed by third-party claims arising from the terminated developer’s actions.

Also Read: Renewal of Lease = New Lease, Attracts Stamp Duty Bombay High Court

The post Bombay High Court: Flat Buyers In Redevelopment Project Can’t Claim Rights Against Society After Developer’s Termination appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling came in Writ Petition No. 13544 of 2025 (Baltazar Fernandes & Ors. vs Deputy Registrar of Societies, H-West Ward & Ors.), heard by Justice Amit Borkar.

Case Background

The petition was filed by Baltazar Fernandes & Ors. challenging the authority of the District Deputy Registrar, H-West Ward, who had issued a “No Objection” for the society’s redevelopment. The petitioners argued that neither the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 nor its Rules empower the Registrar to issue such NOCs. The Bombay High Court examined the legal provisions and government resolutions to determine whether the Registrar has any role in approving redevelopment decisions.

General Body — Not Registrar — Has Final Say

The Court examined the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and the Rules, 1961, and observed that there is no provision anywhere in the law that empowers the Registrar to grant “No Objection” for redevelopment.

• The decision to redevelop a building is entirely within the powers of the General Body of the society, taken in accordance with the society’s bye-laws and the Government Resolution (GR) dated July 4, 2019.
• Once a valid resolution is passed by the General Body, it binds all members.
• If any member has objections to the process, their remedy lies in approaching the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, not in seeking intervention from the Registrar.

Registrar’s Role is Supervisory, Not Decisive

The Court clarified that the Registrar’s role is limited to overseeing the process to ensure transparency, not to approve, modify, or veto redevelopment decisions.

As per the 2019 GR:

• The Registrar must appoint an Authorised Officer to attend the Special General Meeting (SGM) where the developer is selected.
• The Authorised Officer is only required to observe proceedings, check quorum, and ensure proper documentation.
• Societies must submit notices, agenda, and minutes to the Registrar within 15 days, purely for record-keeping.

Importantly, the absence of any Registrar-issued NOC cannot invalidate the redevelopment process once the General Body has followed the law.

Court’s Directions to the State

The Court has directed the Commissioner of Cooperation and the Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, to issue a state-wide circular to all Registrars:

• Stop issuing or insisting on “No Objection” letters for redevelopment proposals.
• Stick to the supervisory role as outlined in the GR — appointment of officers, ensuring meetings are recorded, and maintaining transparency.
• The circular must be uploaded on the Department’s website, and compliance has to be filed in court.

What This Means for Housing Societies

For thousands of housing societies stuck in red tape, this ruling offers a clear legal pathway to proceed with redevelopment without bureaucratic delays caused by Registrars demanding unnecessary NOCs.

• Societies no longer need to wait for Registrar’s “permission” once their General Body has approved redevelopment in line with legal procedures.
• This is expected to fast-track stalled redevelopment projects, especially in Mumbai’s older suburbs where many buildings are in urgent need of reconstruction.
• It also provides legal clarity, protecting societies from arbitrary demands by officials.

Key Takeaways

• Registrar has no power to issue “No Objection” for redevelopment.
• General Body is supreme decision-making authority.
• Registrar’s role is supervisory, not adjudicatory.
• Government to issue statewide circular instructing Registrars accordingly.
• A big relief for housing societies facing bureaucratic hurdles.

Also Read: Court Refuses to Stall Khernagar Redevelopment

The post Housing Society is the Boss: Bombay HC Strikes Down Registrar’s Role in Redevelopment NOCs appeared first on Square Feat India.

The common order, pronounced on October 10, 2025, by a Coram of SHRI S.S. SHINDE J., CHAIRPERSON, and SHRI S.M. DESHPANDE, MEMBER (A), set aside a prior order by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

The Core Dispute: Promoter Status under RERA

The case involved the appellant, D. N. Nagar Shivneri CHS Ltd., a cooperative housing society for a low-income group. The dispute began after the society terminated its development agreement with the erstwhile developer, M/s Sai Siddhant Developers, due to their failure to fulfil obligations. The society subsequently undertook self-redevelopment.

Third-party allottees, who had purchased flats from the erstwhile developer in the free-sale component, filed complaints before MahaRERA.

MahaRERA’s Controversial Order

In its common order dated April 17, 2025, MahaRERA had partly allowed the complaints and passed several key directions against the society, holding it jointly and severally liable:

• Promoter Status: The Society was held to be a “promoter” under the RERA Act, jointly and severally liable for the acts and responsibilities of the erstwhile developer.
• Financial Liabilities: The Society was directed to pay interest for delayed possession from March 31, 2020, and in a few cases, grant a refund of paid amounts along with interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act.
• Project Completion: The Society was ordered to file an affidavit with a roadmap for project completion (either self-development or new developer appointment) within 30 days, failing which penalties under Sections 61 and 63 of the Act would apply.

The Society filed the captioned appeals (MA 377-406 of 2025) before the Tribunal, primarily challenging the finding that it was a “promoter”.

MahaREAT’s Final Verdict: Society is Exempt from Liability

In its final order, MahaREAT set aside the MahaRERA judgment and provided a strong framework for the non-liability of societies in such redevelopment scenarios.

The Tribunal held that the D. N. Nagar Shivneri CHS Ltd. does not fall within the definition of a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act. The Tribunal’s key findings included:

• No Contractual Privity: The Society did not have any revenue or area sharing arrangement with the erstwhile developer, nor did it enter into agreements for sale with the allottees.
• Limited Role: The Society’s role was confined to that of a land owner (on a leasehold basis from MHADA) and undertaking redevelopment solely for its own members.
• Sole Responsibility: The erstwhile developer was held to be solely responsible for the third-party sales.

Consequently, the MahaREAT ruled that the Society is not liable for the claims of third-party purchasers who had agreements with the terminated developer. This decision effectively insulates societies pursuing self-redevelopment from being burdened by the financial obligations and liabilities arising from the original developer’s transactions. The Tribunal also held that the Society was exempt from the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, as it was not a ‘promoter’.

Also Read: Parking Issue: Shift The Wall Orders MahaRERA

The post MahaREAT Landmark Ruling: Housing Societies Not Automatically ‘Promoter’ for Erstwhile Developer’s Liabilities appeared first on Square Feat India.

It’s a matter of great concern for all Mumbaites that successive governments have shown little interest in resolving the burning issue of housing, including the recent phenomena of private property redevelopment in every corner of the city.

Ever since the SRA/MHADA authorities were formalized way back in 1996, when the slum population was in its nascent stages, these government authorities have kept on tweaking their policies in the name of eradicating slums. This, sadly, is just the opposite of what’s happening, keeping the issue burning. It’s no secret that it’s in the government’s interest to proliferate slums and keep on amending Development Control (DC) regulations to create large swathes of land for private developers. Most luxury towers in recent times have therefore mushroomed on such slum lands, and the government gave away insane concessions by charging exorbitant premiums for new construction—not for better planning, but for mutual profiteering!

Until now, real estate has thrived by abusing slum lands. However, as they say, greed has no limits. Now, under DCR 33(11) as well as 33(12), the government even lures private, often smaller properties on the pretext of constructing homes for Project Affected Persons (PAPs) in the same or an adjoining ward. In other words, you pay huge premiums to the government to construct housing for unknown PAPs. There is no official information on how many PAP houses have been constructed from premiums accrued under these regulations. The intent of regulation 33(11) is so blatant that the government has no qualms in selling additional FSI (Floor Space Index) in proportion to the Ready Reckoner (RR) rates of the proposed redevelopment. Today, in the western suburbs, the total redevelopment amount is three to four times that of the construction cost. So, even if the private plot owner or a cooperative society has their own land, which is the most expensive component in real estate, occupants are at the mercy of the government and private developers, as the entire process is complex and opaque. This is one of the main reasons that property sale prices in Mumbai are far more expensive than in any other metro city in the country.

The regulation is deliberately designed only to construct more on a given plot with the least respect for improving liveability. The FSI is randomly increased up to 4.05 to 5.40 for properties abutting roads that are 12 meters or 18 meters wide. In the process, open spaces are reduced to a width of 1.50 meters, irrespective of the building’s height, by charging an exorbitant premium. In other words, the government is actually selling our fundamental right to minimum natural light and air!

A recent study conducted in the upmarket JVPD area clearly shows how an absurd volume of concretization is detrimental not only to the urban skyline but also eventually leads to a terrible quality of life. This study of sixty small plots reveals that open spaces, designed as per the Town Planning (TP) scheme in the late sixties, constituted 6.00 acres out of a total of 9.76 acres of developable land, with an average building height of two to four stories. Now, with DCR 33(11), this open space is reduced to less than half—2.9 acres—whereas the building heights are touching 12 to 15 floors! Hence, the government has virtually snatched the right to natural light and air of not only the plot seeking development but also the neighboring plots. Such a drastic reduction of open space has already impacted the green cover. Similarly, roads originally planned for approximately 120 residents’ cars would now have to accommodate a whopping 1200 cars for the same width and length of roads, in addition to the ever-increasing through traffic. The two visual diagrams say it all: JVPD – Today & JVPD – Future!

Generally, building regulations are amended from time to time primarily to improve the quality of life and resolve new challenges for the future. But in our city, all along it’s only been about more construction, more density, more floating population, more car parks, more misuses, more greed, more social disharmony, and more corruption. The additional construction not only increases habitable areas as per the enhanced FSI but also allows another 70 to 80 percent of “free FSI” construction such as free stilts and entrance halls, free stairs and lift lobbies, free podiums, free basements, free gyms, free society offices, and so on.

The permissions under DCR 33-11 are issued by MHADA, so corruption is taken for granted. This is evident when hundreds of crores in corruption have made routine headlines in the media. While the credibility of many private developers is questionable, even the listed corporate companies have indulged in money-spinning redevelopment projects as another vertical to reflect in their balance sheets.

In this entire complex process, how the PAPs benefit becomes non-significant. I really wonder when our city’s influencers in government and privileged citizens will realize that it’s bad money when it is earned dubiously in the name of the poor!

Note: Killawala is an acclaimed and renowned architect based out of Mumbai. Views expressed in the article solely belong to the author.

Also Read: These are Mumbai City’s Most Dangerous Buildings to Live In – MHADA Declares 96 Cessed Buildings Unsafe in Pre-Monsoon Survey

The post ALL IN THE NAME OF POOR! The Detrimental Impact of DCR 33(11) appeared first on Square Feat India.

The handover ceremony took place at the MHADA headquarters in Bandra East. The event saw the presence of MLA Captain Tamil Selvan, Chief Officer of MHADA Mumbai Board Milind Borikar, Chairman and Managing Director of Keystone Realtors (Rustomjee Group) Boman Irani, Deputy Chief Engineer Bhushan Desai, and Rahul Vhatkar, alongside office bearers and residents from various GTB Nagar housing societies.

Project Details and Benefits

The redevelopment project encompasses approximately 11.20 acres and includes about 1200 residential units across 25 buildings. Under the plan, each of the 1200 residents will receive a 635 sq ft home free of cost. MHADA will also provide maintenance charges for five years following the redevelopment’s completion. During the construction period, affected residents will receive Rs 20,000 per month as rent until their new homes are ready.

The proposal approved by MHADA ensures a minimum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 4.5, including fungible FSI, under Development Control Regulation 33(9). MHADA is set to receive 25,700 square meters of housing stock from the project.

Historical Context of GTB Nagar

GTB Nagar, formerly part of Sion Koliwada, holds a unique place in Mumbai’s history. It was established as a colony for Sikh and Hindu refugees, including a significant number of Sindhi refugees, who migrated to India from Pakistan following the Partition of India in 1947. The 25 buildings now slated for redevelopment were constructed in 1958 to rehabilitate these migrants.

In 2020, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation declared these buildings dangerous, leading to their subsequent demolition and the relocation of residents. The redevelopment aims to provide modern, safe housing for these families.

Legal and Administrative Path

The decision to implement this private land redevelopment project through MHADA followed requests from residents. Under the guidance of Devendra Fadnavis, a policy was finalized for the MHADA Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board to execute the project.

The proposal for the redevelopment of the Sindhi refugee buildings in Sion Koliwada, by appointing a Construction & Development Agency under Regulation 33(9), received approval in a Cabinet meeting on February 14, 2024. Following this, MHADA was granted recognition as a Special Planning Authority for the project via a Government Resolution dated February 23, 2024, enabling it to initiate the tender process.

The project faced legal challenges from Lakhani Housing Developers, who claimed prior agreements with residents. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed their petition, upholding MHADA’s authority. The Supreme Court further affirmed this decision by dismissing an appeal from Lakhani Housing Corporation, clearing the legal path for MHADA to proceed.

Official Statements

Sanjeev Jaiswal, Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, MHADA, stated that the GTB Nagar Sion Koliwada Sindhi refugee buildings redevelopment project is the first of its kind to be implemented through a Construction & Development Agency, marking it as a pilot for redeveloping buildings on private land through MHADA. He directed the agency to prepare a master plan and assured close monitoring of the project’s progress, suggesting the formation of a 5 to 7-member committee from housing societies for periodic review. Jaiswal emphasized that the rehabilitation of the 1200 residents is a priority and confirmed MHADA’s full cooperation.

Milind Borikar, Chief Officer of the Mumbai Board, noted that this redevelopment project is being implemented under the guidance of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Deputy Chief Minister and Housing Minister Eknath Shinde. He added that the Supreme Court’s judgment on petitions related to this project would benefit MHADA in future similar projects. Borikar also confirmed MHADA’s commitment to pay maintenance charges for five years post-redevelopment and a monthly rent of Rs 20,000 until the project is completed.

MLA Captain Tamil Selvan recalled his request to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for the rehabilitation of these residents to be on the lines of the BDD Chawl redevelopment project, leading to Fadnavis’s instruction for MHADA to implement the project. Selvan acknowledged Jaiswal’s positive steps in commencing the work.

Also Read: MHADA Awards Tender to Rustomjee to Redevelop GTB Nagar Sion Project

The post MHADA Awards GTB Nagar Sion Project to Keystone Realtors (Rustomjee Group) appeared first on Square Feat India.

Bombay High Court and Supreme Court Orders

The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by Lakhani Housing Developers, which had challenged MHADA’s decision to redevelop the GTB Nagar land. Lakhani Housing Developers had claimed vested rights due to prior agreements with individual residents. However, the High Court ruled that these individual agreements became irrelevant once cooperative societies were formed and a majority of residents supported MHADA’s redevelopment plan. The court prioritized public interest and the welfare of the displaced residents, many of whom have been awaiting rehabilitation since their dilapidated buildings were demolished between 2019 and 2022.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court also dismissed an appeal by Lakhani Housing Corporation, reinforcing the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed that a writ petition could not be maintained against the e-tender issued by MHADA, especially when the cooperative societies supported the development initiative. This legal clearance paves the way for MHADA to proceed with the tender process for the redevelopment project.

Project Details

The redevelopment project in Sion Koliwada spans approximately 11.20 acres (45,308.58 square meters) and involves 25 buildings that previously housed around 1,200 families. MHADA has been appointed as the special planning authority and plans to provide larger homes for existing residents, with each receiving a 635 sq ft unit free of cost. Additionally, MHADA aims to acquire over 1,000 extra homes for sale through a lottery system. The estimated cost of the project is ₹2,930.77 crore.

History of Punjabi Colony as a Refugee Camp

Originally known as Koliwada, the area now called Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar (GTB Nagar) in Sion, Mumbai, has a poignant history rooted in the Partition of India in 1947. It became a settlement for Sikh and Hindu refugees primarily from the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. These displaced individuals initially found shelter in the Sion-Koliwada military camp.

In the 1950s, the state government constructed 25 chawl-like four-story buildings in the camp, offering flats to these refugee families for sale under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The area soon earned the moniker “Mini Punjab” due to the large Punjabi population and was officially renamed Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar in the 1970s. Over the decades, these buildings deteriorated and were eventually declared dilapidated, leading to the current comprehensive redevelopment initiative by MHADA.

Also Read: MHADA Mumbai lottery for 2,683 homes

The post MHADA Awards Tender to Rustomjee to Redevelop GTB Nagar Sion Project appeared first on Square Feat India.