HC: Housing society can’t take back nod for redevelopment | mumbai | Hindustan Times
  • Sunday, May 27, 2018
  •   °C  
Today in New Delhi, India
May 27, 2018-Sunday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

HC: Housing society can’t take back nod for redevelopment

Members of a housing society cannot revoke consent given for redevelopment, the Bombay high court held on Monday. The ruling paves the way for the speedy redevelopment of 10 chawls in Dadar (East).

mumbai Updated: Sep 20, 2011 01:34 IST
Kanchan Chaudhari

Members of a housing society cannot revoke consent given for redevelopment, the Bombay high court held on Monday. The ruling paves the way for the speedy redevelopment of 10 chawls in Dadar (East).

Seventy-nine members of Lokmanya Nagar Priyadarshani co-operative housing society had filed a petition contending that consent given by them and other members had become null and void after the state government rejected one of the proposals submitted by the developer.

On Monday, a division bench of justice BH Marlapalle and justice Nishita Mhatre dismissed this petition.

The society members moved court after the Mumbai unit of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) issued eviction notices to them on July 21, 2011. The notices were issued after Mhada, in April 2011, revalidated an NOC granted to Sheetal Sagar Builders back in October 2004.

The society had signed an agreement with the developer in January 2001; 212 of the 263 members had given their nod to the developer.

The developer then submitted a redevelopment plan.

Later, as suggested by the housing authority, the developer submitted a fresh proposal for joint development of the property with Mhada as party to the project.

However, the state government rejected this proposal on December 23, 2010, on technical grounds. Mhada then renewed an NOC it had earlier granted to Sheetal Sagar Builders.

Society members declared that their consent had lapsed as the state government had turned down the developer’s proposal for joint development.

They added that consent could not survive beyond the contract they had entered into with the developer.
The court, however, rejected this contention holding that the society members, including the petitioners, were
governed by irrevocable consents.

The judges also took into consideration that the developer had so far constructed 136 transit tenements for the society members to move into and had invested more than Rs 12 crore for implementation of the the redevelopment project in Dadar (East).