Topic
The Supreme Court ruled developers cannot evade obligations under the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) after accepting possession of cessed buildings for redevelopment under the MHAD Act. The judgment reinforces occupant rights and directs MHADA to enforce compliance, including flat handover within two months.
Bombay High Court holds that MHADA lacks statutory authority to include co-operative housing societies in cluster redevelopment under DCPR 33(9) without their consent, as it violates lease rights and constitutional protections under Article 300A. The ruling reinforces that state agencies cannot override property rights without explicit legal backing.
Bombay High Court permits developers to comply with surplus area surrender and tenant rehabilitation requirements through an undertaking, deferring physical handover until appeal disposal. The ruling balances statutory compliance with practical execution, ensuring project continuity while protecting tenant rights under MHADA redevelopment norms.
Bombay High Court rules that MHADA's demolition orders under Section 55 of the MR&TP Act become final if unchallenged within the prescribed timeline, barring subsequent legal recourse. The court rejected pleas for fresh hearings, reinforcing strict compliance with statutory timelines for property disputes involving government authorities.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that beneficiaries who take possession of their rehab flats cannot lawfully retain transit accommodation, empowering MHADA to evict them within four weeks with police assistance. This sets a binding precedent for housing authorities across Maharashtra to enforce policy compliance and prevent abuse of temporary housing resources meant for the homeless.
Bombay High Court rules that authorities cannot demolish structures while a regularisation application is pending, ensuring procedural fairness and protection of housing rights under Articles 14 and 21. The court mandated timely disposal of such applications within eight weeks, preventing coercive action until adjudication.
Bombay High Court holds that MHADA need not obtain consent from all cooperative societies for redevelopment when it remains legal owner of land and buildings under DCPR 2034.