MUMBAI: A confidential report from MHADA’s legal department has confirmed that the critical Section 79A notice issued to Parekh Estate Pvt Ltd has never been revoked. This contradicts earlier claims made by MHADA panel advocate Priyanka Chavan during a writ petition in front of the Bombay High Court this year.
According to an internal memo dated November 14, 2025, “the 79A notice issued to the landlord…has not been revoked by this office.” It further indicates that there are no documents reflecting any revocation and that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Dy. Chief Engineer (Zone II), not the legal department.
On March 10, while representing MHADA, Chavan informed the High Court that the contentious 79A notice (dated April 30, 2024) was revoked after the petitioner “deposited the necessary charges with the competent authority.” This statement led to the court dismissing the petition.
Section 79A pertains to the redevelopment procedures for cessed buildings deemed unsafe.
However, an RTI response sent by MHADA to resident-activist Jeetendra Ghadge previously confirmed that no revocation had occurred. This inconsistency prompted Ghadge to file a formal complaint alleging “fraudulent misrepresentation” and “gross dereliction of duty,” calling for a departmental investigation.
Following the complaint, MHADA questioned Chavan, who defended herself by providing WhatsApp conversations with MHADA Executive Engineer Rahul Ravindra Patil, asserting she only relayed the instructions given to her. Chavan stated, “While the order indicates the notice under Section 79A was withdrawn, I only conveyed to the Hon’ble Court the messages received. This may be seen as a miscommunication, not fraudulent intent.”
Nevertheless, MHADA’s legal department came to a different conclusion. The final memo states: “The submissions made before the High Court were not based on directives from the relevant officer. Given these circumstances, Smt. Priyanka Chavan’s appointment should be terminated,” though it does not address the redevelopment issue directly.
Ghadge, who initiated the RTI request and subsequent complaint, contends the report shows that MHADA’s attorney misled the court but laments that the primary concerns of tenants have been ignored. “The landlord was trying to get the 79A notice revoked. Because of this false submission, we’ve been unjustly denied our legal redevelopment process,” Ghadge stated. “I’m not satisfied with this report. They simply removed her; that’s hardly a consequence. There’s nothing regarding what MHADA plans to do about our building case.”
In his written complaint, Ghadge, representing the tenants of Parekh Estate, demanded a departmental inquiry against Chavan. While MHADA acknowledged internal errors, the legal department’s report remains silent on the redevelopment situation for the troubled Girgaum building, which is precisely what the tenants have been advocating.
Despite multiple attempts, Milind Shambharkar, Chief Officer at the MHADA board, did not respond to calls or messages.
