Mumbai, April 2: Cracking the whip on delays in the long-stalled Siddharth Nagar (Patra Chawl) redevelopment, the Bombay High Court on Thursday made it clear that pending disputes cannot come in the way of flat handover.
The court has directed residents to take possession of their rehabilitation tenements while clarifying that key issues are resolved separately by authorities.
Court hears plea on stalled redevelopment
A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a petition filed by the Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Limited regarding the redevelopment undertaken by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA).
Residents willing to take possession
At the outset, senior advocate Pradeep Sancheti, appearing for the society, told the court that members were “ready and willing to take possession” of their respective tenements. The court was also informed that some members had already moved into their flats.
Defect liability issue raised in court
However, Sancheti pointed out that certain “loose issues” still required resolution, including the defect liability period and its commencement date. Defect liability is the contractor’s legal obligation to rectify any defects in a project or product within a specified period after completion.
On this, advocate for MHADA, Manisha Jagtap, along with the contractor’s advocate Mahesh Londe, submitted that the defect liability period was governed by the agreement between MHADA and the contractor and “cannot be altered by any judicial order”.
The court accepted the submission and held that the defect liability period must be “reckoned as agreed” between them.
Key disputes to be decided by MHADA chief officer
The bench identified three key issues, raised by the petitioners, which are to be adjudicated by MHADA’s Chief Officer (CO). These include the tenure of the lease, lease rent, and the extent of land to be leased to the society.
The society has sought a 90-year lease tenure, while MHADA maintained that, as per its current policy, it should be limited to 30 years. Sancheti said that the transactions have been going on since the 1980s and hence the lease term should be for a 90-year period.
However, on a court query, the senior advocate failed to produce any document wherein the housing body has agreed to sign a 90-year lease term.
The bench then asked MHADA’s CO to take “an appropriate decision in accordance with law” on the issues after hearing the parties, and perusing the material and relevant documents.
Court remarks on lease rent and land dispute
Regarding lease rent, the society argued that no additional premium should be charged under applicable government resolutions. The court, however, observed that such payment “ought not to be any issue”, noting that the land belonged to MHADA and was public property.
“Whatever lease rent as per the policy… becomes payable, the petitioners would be required to pay the same, without any quarrel,” the bench remarked, adding that such rents were “hardly anything” compared to those charged by other authorities like CIDCO.
Another major dispute concerns the land area — while the society claims entitlement to 13.18 acres, MHADA contends it is limited to 4.3 acres, as the larger area has been redeveloped by different developers.
The court directed that this issue too be decided by the CO based on relevant documents. The bench further clarified that the Chief Officer’s authority to fix lease terms must be exercised “in accordance with law” and in line with standard conditions applicable to similar projects.
Financial issues and reimbursements addressed
On financial aspects, the court noted disputes over a Rs 25 crore corpus and additional tenements given in lieu of interest, as well as amenity shortfall compensation. These too were left for determination by the CO. However, it recorded that MHADA had agreed to reimburse Rs 20 lakh to the society, leaving “no dispute” on that count.
Also Watch:
Possession not to be delayed by disputes
Directing the CO to convene a meeting with all stakeholders and take a point-wise decision, the court said the outcome must be placed on record.
Importantly, it emphasised that pending disputes cannot delay possession. “Merely because these issues are being considered… [it] would not [mean] that members… would not take possession,” the bench said, adding that those willing should also proceed with executing Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA).
The matter has been kept for hearing on April 17.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
