Daijiworld Media Network - Mumbai
Mumbai, Feb 24: The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on the chief officer of Mhada’s Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board for cancelling a no-objection certificate (NOC) granted for redevelopment of a building in Tardeo, observing that such drastic powers cannot override civil court jurisdiction.
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, in an order dated February 17, remarked that there is an “increasing tendency” of individuals to approach public officials vested with high powers in matters involving substantial investments and construction projects.
The case arose after developer Kumar Agro Products Pvt Ltd challenged the October 13, 2025 order passed by Milind Shambarkar, Chief Officer (CO) of Mhada’s Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, cancelling an NOC issued in September 2019 to property owners Samir and Vaibhav Thakre.
The redevelopment project had already progressed significantly, with ten of the proposed sixteen floors constructed.
The NOC was revoked following a representation by advocates for Geetadevi Jadhav on June 18, 2025, claiming a four-fifths share in the property. The developer contended that under a December 1968 partition deed, the ownership rights of the Thakres had crystallised in 2025.
Senior advocate Vineet Naik, appearing for the developer, argued that Jadhav had not filed a civil suit to assert her alleged rights but instead approached authorities, including the BMC, which had earlier issued a stop-work notice that was subsequently stayed by the high court. He submitted that the CO’s order was patently illegal, as only a civil court is empowered to adjudicate and declare legal rights of parties.
The bench observed that the NOC had been granted “far back” on September 20, 2019, and construction had progressed to the tenth floor. In such circumstances, the officer concerned had an onerous duty to thoroughly examine all issues and obtain legal opinion before passing any drastic order.
The court noted that the CO had exercised powers that fall within the domain of a civil court and that such an action had effectively set aside the valuable rights of the owners and the developer guaranteed under Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution.
During the hearing, Mhada’s counsel P G Lad informed the court that the impugned order would be withdrawn and not acted upon. The bench recorded this statement and quashed and set aside the order as withdrawn.
The judges refrained from imposing costs, unlike in a previous similar matter where officials were directed to pay a fine of Rs 5 lakh. However, the bench cautioned that if such instances recur, the court would have no option but to take a serious view against the officials concerned.