MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court criticized the chief officer (CO) of Mhada’s Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board for revoking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the redevelopment of a building in Tardeo. So far, ten out of the proposed sixteen floors have been constructed.
“There is a growing trend among individuals to appeal to public officials with substantial powers related to constructions and projects involving significant investments,” stated Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe on February 17.
The developer, Kumar Agro Products Pvt Ltd, contested CO Milind Shambarkar’s October 13, 2025, decision that annulled the NOC initially granted in September 2019 to property owners Samir and Vaibhav Thakre. This order directed the developer to halt redevelopment work. The cancellation followed a representation made by Geetadevi Jadhav’s advocates on June 18, 2025, who claimed a 4/5th share in the property. The petition from the developer pointed out that a partition deed from December 1968 had solidified the owners’ rights in 2025.
Senior advocate Vineet Naik, representing the developer, argued that Jadhav sought to disrupt construction proceedings without pursuing a civil suit to uphold her rights. Instead, she approached the BMC, leading to a stop-work order which was later stayed by the HC. Naik noted that Jadhav’s actions were improper as the CO lacks the authority to determine legal ownership rights, which only a civil court can address. He remarked on a troubling trend where parties forgo legal recourse in favor of direct appeals to officials. The judges concurred.
The bench highlighted that the NOC was granted as far back as September 20, 2019, and construction had progressed to the 10th floor. “In such a scenario, it was the responsibility of the officer to thoroughly review all matters and seek legal advice before issuing such drastic orders,” the court noted, emphasizing that such an order undermined the legal rights of the parties involved, protected under Articles 300A (property) and 14 (equality).
The judges acknowledged the counsel of Mhada’s advocate, P.G. Lad, who indicated that the order would be rescinded and not enforced. Thus, they officially quashed the order. They chose not to impose penalties like those in previous cases, warning that future occurrences would necessitate stringent action against the officials involved.
