HC dismisses govt servants’ plea seeking ownership of Powai quarters

The court found “no merit and substance” in the claim of the petitioners, who included serving and retired government servants, that the flats they occupied near the upscale Hiranandani township in Powai must be handed over to them on ownership basis

Mumbai: Granting no relief to state government employees who had sought ownership of the 72 flats allotted to them as government quarters in the Blue Bell building in Powai, the Bombay High Court recently said that employees could live in the flats as long as they served the state government and asked the retired employees occupying the flats to vacate them within 12 weeks.

HC dismisses govt servants’ plea seeking ownership of Powai quarters

A division bench of justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said in their order dated April 16 that they found “no merit and substance” in the claim of the petitioners, who included serving and retired government servants, that the flats they occupied near the upscale Hiranandani township in Powai must be handed over to them on ownership basis.

The petitioners had argued that the high court had, in a public interest litigation (PIL) in 2012, directed purchase of the flats by the state government at a specified rate, and their subsequent sale to government employees. The judges, however, said that since the government had chosen to allot the 72 flats in Blue Bell as government accommodation, “those petitioners who are in employment of state government, can be in occupation of the said flat, till he/she attain the age of superannuation”.

Asking the retired employees to vacate the premises, the court said that the state government could evict any occupant of the flats who did not vacate the premises within the specified time “as there is no legal entitlement in him to continue the occupation, if he ceases to be a government servant”.

The court was hearing three petitions filed by occupants of the Blue Bell building – including serving and retired government servants from various departments – seeking directions to the state urban development department (UDD) and the district collector to transfer the flats in the building to them on ownership basis.

To back their claim, the petitioners cited an order of the high court in a PIL in 2012. The court had then observed that there were violations of the tripartite agreement between the state government, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and Hiranandani Developers and inadequate affordable housing in the scheme. Since the buildings in Powai had already been constructed in 2012, the court had laid down a condition for the developer to sell 15% of the total floor space index (FSI) of the plot consumed under the development scheme to the state government at ₹135 per square feet. The state government was to offer the flats to its employees at that rate, as per the order.

The refusal of state authorities to give government employees ownership of the flats, despite repeated reminders, was “proof of systematic indifference and a breakdown in administrative accountability”, the petitioners’ lawyers told the court.

The court was informed that under various schemes, the state government had received 400 flats, including 96 flats in the Blue Bell building, of which 72 had been purchased by the state public works department. However, instead of selling these flats to government employees, the government had chosen to retain them as government accommodation for its employees.

The court said it found no flaw in the state government’s decision “as having purchased 72 flats in the Blue Bell building, it has inducted its own employees, by treating the same as government accommodation…”.

“We see no right in the petitioners to claim that the flats shall be sold to them on an ownership basis, as once the government has acquired these flats, in form of surrendered tenements…it is open to the state government to utilise it in the manner which would, in any way, cater to the need of housing and if it chooses a class of such people (its employees), we do not find any illegality in it,” the court said.

Ashif Husain, lawyer for petitioner Rajesh Govil and four others, said they will move the Supreme Court challenging the high court’s decision.

Multiple petitions

In July last year, 19 state government officers living in Blue Bell building had filed a complaint leading to the registration of a first information report (FIR) against retired deputy secretary Rajesh Govil, accusing him of collecting ₹2.61 crore from them on the pretext of converting their residential quarters into ownership homes.

While no arrests were made in the case, Govil filed a petition in the Bombay High Court for quashing the FIR lodged at the Powai police station on July 19, 2025. He stated that while he and other government employees living in Blue Bell had jointly filed a petition before the High Court in 2018 seeking ownership of the government allotted premises, internal disagreements among them over fund utilisation and delays led to his harassment and the false accusation against him.

In 2025, Govil filed a separate petition in the high court seeking the same relief as the 2018 petition. In all, three petitions were filed by residents of Blue Bell seeking ownership of their government quarters, which were all dismissed by the court.