Disposed

Macrotech Developers Limited v. the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Department

Bombay HC22 Mar 2024WP/1385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning a redevelopment scheme where the rehabilitation component was complete and an occupation certificate obtained, but 118 tenants had not taken possession. The court permitted the developer to hand over the vacant tenements to MHADA, which would allot them to eligible tenants and issue a no objection certificate for sale of the sale component.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to hand over 118 rehab tenements to MHADA; MHADA to issue NOC for sale component within two weeks of possession.

Macrotech Developers Limited vs the State of Maharashtra… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Osk 15-Wp-1385-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1385 OF 2024

¶5

Macrotech Developers Limited … Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Amogh Singh, Priyal Chedda, Akshata Naik & Aditya Dhatrak i/b. Jeet Gandhi for Petitioner.

¶9

Mrs. Jyoti Chavan, Addl.G.P. a/w. Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for State. Ms. K.H. Mastakar i/b. Komal Punjabi for BMC. Mr. P.G. Lad a/w. Sayali Apte & Anjali Maskar for MHADA. Mr. Manoj Patil i/b. Vrinda Ghorpade for Applicant/Intervenor.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 22^nd October 2024.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner, on

¶13

instructions, submitted that, the rehab component of the scheme of the Respondent No.3-Society undertaken by the Petitioners is duly constructed. That, as per the Agreement and Sanction Plan, 378 tenements of rehabilitation component is ready and the Respondent No.5-BMC has granted Occupation Certificate for it. He submitted that, out of total 378 tenants, 260 tenants have taken possession of their respective premises and

¶14

1/3

¶15

Osk 15-Wp-1385-2024.doc

¶16

118 tenants have not yet taken it. That, as per the scheme sanctioned by the Competent Authority, unless and until the Petitioner hands over possession of the rehab component to the concerned, it will not be able to start construction and/or sale of the tenements of the sale component building. That, for construction of the said buildings substantial funds have been invested by the Petitioner for undertaking the said project and if there is further delay it will cause monetary loss to the Petitioner.

¶17

1.1) He submitted that, apart from the said fact, the project has been registered under the The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and there is legal obligation on the Petitioner to even complete the sale component within stipulated period. In case of any delay thereof, under the provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Petitioner will be saddled with penalty and may have to face other legal consequences. He submitted that, the Petitioner is ready and willing to handover the possession of the vacant 118 tenants to MHADA, who intern may distribute it or allot it to the remaining tenants, who have not yet taken possession of their respective tenements till date.

¶18

Mr. Lad, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2MHADA, on instructions submitted that, Respondent No.2 is ready and willing to accept the possession of the said tenements/premises provided it is as per the specification of the Sanctioned Plan.

¶19

2/3

¶20

Osk 15-Wp-1385-2024.doc

¶21

In view thereof, we permit the Petitioner to handover possession of 118 vacant tenements duly constructed by it, as per the Sanctioned Plan to MHADA. If the Competent Authority of MHADA intends, it may measure the said structures through their Engineers before execution of the receipts of acceptance of the concerned tenants. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia will be entitled to allot and/or distribute the said premises to the eligible tenants, as per the scheme sanctioned by it.

¶22

3.1) After the Respondent No.2 receives the vacant possession of the said 118 tenants, as per the ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by it dated 26^th March 2019 and in particular clause Nos.15 & 16 thereof, the Respondent No.2 shall issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the Petitioner for sale of its sale component of the tenements constructed by it, within a period of two weeks therefrom.

¶23

3.2) As far as the 118 tenants who have not yet taken the possession of their respective tenements is concerned, they are at liberty to either approach the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1385 of 2024 or to the Respondent No.2-MHADA, for its possession.

¶24

Stand over to 28^th November 2024.

¶25

( KAMAL KHATA, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶26

Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR OMKAR KUMBHAKARN SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2024.11.04 16:44:17 +0530

¶27

3/3

Macrotech Developers Limited v. the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Macrotech Developers Limited v. the State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhavesh Dhimant Ponda vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Deepak Jitendra Parikh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority through Chief Executive Officer

Rajjab Ali Mohammad Sayeed Dhole. vs the Commissioner of Thane Municipal Corporation, and Ors.

M/S. Cosmos Prime Projects Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr It Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development and Ors.

Punjab National Bank through Power of Attorney Rajiv Minhas vs Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Manisha Narendra Deshpande and Anr. vs Chairman/Secretar Deepadarshini Chs Ltd. and Ors.