Executive Engineer Empowered To Direct Eviction In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has cleared the path for stalled redevelopment projects in Mumbai, ruling that individual tenants cannot weaponize minor procedural grievances to halt the summary eviction process necessary for safety and reconstruction. In a significant jurisdictional clarification, the Court held that Executive Engineers are fully competent to exercise powers under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 to dispossess non-cooperating occupants, shielding critical housing projects from minority obstruction.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad adjudicated a batch of writ petitions filed by a minority group of tenants of 'Issa Building' in Madanpura. The petitioners challenged eviction notices issued by the Executive Engineer, arguing that such powers vest solely in the "Board" as a collective body and that redevelopment conditions regarding area entitlement and bank guarantees remained unfulfilled.

Executive Engineer as a Competent Authority

The Bombay High Court examined the statutory framework of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, particularly Section 16 and Section 18. It observed that the administrative hierarchy created by the Act includes Chief Officers and other designated officers as part of the machinery through which the Board functions. The Bench rejected the petitioners' argument that Section 95A actions require a collective Board resolution for every instance, noting that such an interpretation would render the administrative structure otiose.

Referring to the administrative orders issued in 2022 and 2026, the Bench noted that the Executive Engineer was duly empowered by the Chief Officer to initiate the impugned actions. The Bombay High Court distinguished the present case from Javed Abdul Rahim Attar and Ors. v/s. MHADA, clarifying that the jurisdictional disqualification applicable to Section 79-A does not extend to Section 95A proceedings.

Observations on Tenant Obstruction

The Bench emphasized that the primary objective of Section 95A is to protect the interests of occupiers of dilapidated buildings and ensure speedy implementation of redevelopment schemes. It noted that 57 out of 83 tenants had already surrendered possession, and the minority's refusal was prejudicially affecting the majority. The Bombay High Court, in its reasoning, observed that "The purpose of Section 95A is apparent. It creates a special mechanism to deal with the non-cooperating members and to enable speedy implementation of a redevelopment scheme. Section 95A is a summary procedure and is not intended to become a substitute for a civil trial concerning every disputed aspect of the redevelopment."

The Bombay High Court ordered that "The impugned proceedings have been initiated in furtherance of a sanctioned redevelopment scheme and within the framework of Section 95A of the MHADA Act. The Petitioners cannot be permitted to stall the project. Hence, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs."

Background

The dispute centered on 'Issa Building', a dilapidated structure being redeveloped under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 2034. The petitioners, a minority group of tenants, challenged the eviction notices dated August 12, 2026, issued under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. They alleged that the developers (Respondent Nos. 7 and 8) failed to comply with NOC conditions regarding Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA), corpus funds, and area entitlements.

The Bombay High Court relied on Radhika George v/s. MHADA to affirm that summary eviction is a valid tool to facilitate redevelopment and cited Vasant Kheraj Bhanushali and Ors. v/s. Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Ltd. to reinforce that consent once given cannot be revoked at the whim of individual occupants. The Bench also drew support from Sayed Anwar Gafoor v/s. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner to confirm that the Board's functions can be discharged through authorized officers. Ultimately, the Bench found no breach of natural justice or jurisdictional error, dismissing the petitions.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 29228 OF 2026 (and connected matters)
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:21883-DB
Case Title: Javed Abdul Rashid Ansari vs. State of Maharashtra
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amrut Joshi with Amol Joshi, Aarti Nimbalkar & Radhika Kulkarni i/b Sufiyan Shaikh
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General, with Mr. Jaya Bagwe for MHADA; Mr. J. G. Aradwad (Reddy); Mr. Arvind T. Rathod i/b Komal Punjabi for BMC; Ms. Nazia Shaikh, AGP; Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Shoaib I. Memon for Respondent Nos. 7 & 8

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 6516