HC raps lone dissenting flat owner for stalling redevelopment project

The court said that a lone dissenting flat owner cannot block a project approved by the overwhelming majority of residents, and also noted that the flat owner had initiated a “series of unsuccessful litigations” after losing the redevelopment bid, solely to delay the project

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has criticised a flat owner, a developer, for obstructing the redevelopment of a dilapidated building in Borivali, stressing that a lone dissenting flat owner cannot block a project approved by the overwhelming majority of residents, and noting that he had initiated a “series of unsuccessful litigations” after losing the redevelopment bid, solely to delay the project.

Bombay High Court (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

The case concerns Borivali Amita Co-operative Housing Society, a building that was constructed in the 1980s and declared unsafe in 2021. Subsequently, the society invited bids for redevelopment. Rajendra Builders, the dissenting flat owner’s firm, submitted a proposal, but it was rejected and one Balaji Padmavati Developer was appointed to redevelop the building.

In May 2025, a Development Agreement was executed, binding all members, including the flat owner, and the developer subsequently received key approvals, including an Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) from the BMC in January 2025. All members except this one flat owner vacated their flats and signed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements, after which the developer began paying transit rent from May 2025. The dissenting flat owner refused to hand over possession, locking the flat despite not residing there — a fact supported by a zero-consumption electricity bill of April 2025— thereby preventing demolition work from starting, the court noted.

During the hearing on Friday last week, the court noted that none of these proceedings yielded any interim relief, including the one before the writ court over the past six months. After losing the redevelopment contract, the flat owner launched multiple legal challenges to stall the project, including a writ petition against BMC approvals, a civil suit seeking cancellation of the Development Agreement and ₹15 crore in damages, complaints to the Co-operatives Registrar and the police, and repeated objections to municipal authorities.

He also argued that the building lay within 77 metres of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) and required prior clearance under the 2016 Eco-Sensitive Zone notification. The bench rejected this contention, holding that such factual determinations lie with planning authorities, not the appellate court. The BMC confirmed that the building does not fall within the 100-metre buffer zone, though an SGNP NOC is required — a condition the developer has already agreed to.

The court further observed that the SGNP issue was already pending in the flat owner’s writ petition and could not be re-litigated before the arbitration appellate court.

Reaffirming established principles governing co-operative societies, the bench cited earlier rulings, including Girish Mulchand Mehta and Pranav Constructions, to underline that majority decisions on redevelopment bind individual members. A single non-cooperative member, the court said, cannot hold the rest of the society hostage when every other resident has vacated and the developer is incurring ongoing transit rent.

The court also noted that the flat owner does not reside in the building and has not offered any compensation for the hardship caused to other members who have already shifted to temporary accommodation.

Noting that the flat owners’ conduct had imposed financial burdens on the developer, who continues to pay transit rent while redevelopment remains stalled, the court dismissed the appeal and also permitted the developer and society to seek actual legal costs in the arbitration proceedings, paving the way for the long-delayed redevelopment — stalled solely due to the dissenting member — to move forward once routine clearances are completed.