13 August 2024 Dispute with Muncipal/Local Body >> Property & Real Estate   |   Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

In a recent landmark decision of T.J. Thomas & Others v/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Mumbai & Others, the Bombay High Court has addressed a protracted legal battle involving the issuance of an Occupation Certificate (OC) for a property in Mumbai, highlighting systemic issues and administrative failures.

Background:

The case revolves around two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The petitioners, former tenants of a property on Miya Mohamed Chhotani Road, Mahim, Mumbai, were seeking an OC for their new premises, constructed by Raj Realtors Construction Company Pvt Ltd (the Developer). Despite completing the construction of the commercial wing, the Developer failed to secure the necessary OC and meet other regulatory requirements, leading to an impasse for the petitioners.

Key Facts:

The Developer acquired the property in 1986 with plans to redevelop it, displacing the existing tenants. According to a consent agreement, the petitioners vacated their old premises and took possession of the new commercial spaces. However, the Developer did not obtain the required No Objection Certificate (NOC) from MHADA for the commercial wing, resulting in the BMC withholding essential services such as water and sewerage facilities, and imposing a 150% property tax penalty. Despite multiple court orders and communications, the Developer did not comply with regulatory requirements, such as surrendering land to MHADA or providing a bank guarantee. This inaction led to significant hardship for the petitioners, who were unfairly burdened with additional municipal taxes and denied basic utilities.

Court's Findings

The court found that the BMC and MHADA had both failed in their responsibilities, notably by not enforcing the Developer's obligations. The BMC had issued an NOC for the residential wing without ensuring the Developer's compliance with the conditions. Similarly, MHADA had not secured the necessary land or compensation from the Developer. The court criticized the authorities for their apparent nexus with the Developer, which led to the petitioners suffering undue financial and operational hardships. The judgment underscored that the BMC and MHADA's negligence in performing their duties resulted in significant losses and inconveniences for the petitioners.

Orders and Recommendations:

The court issued several directives:

1. Immediate NOC and OC Issuance: MHADA was ordered to issue an NOC to the petitioners by August 30, 2024, and the BMC was instructed to grant the OC by September 20, 2024.

2. Reconciliation of Payments: The BMC must reconcile the payments made by the petitioners over the past 20 years and adjust or refund excess amounts collected. Any outstanding amounts must be settled within two weeks of the reconciliation.

3. Investigation and Accountability: The CEO of MHADA and the BMC's Deputy Commissioner are directed to investigate the conduct of their officers, ensuring accountability for the administrative lapses and seeking recovery of losses from the Developer. Reports are due by March 15, 2025.

4. Future Compliance: Both MHADA and the BMC must take immediate action to secure the Developer's compliance with the original conditions and ensure that such failures do not recur.

Conclusion:

The court’s ruling provides a significant relief to the petitioners, addressing long-standing grievances related to the non-issuance of the OC and unjust tax penalties. The decision also underscores the need for stringent oversight and accountability within regulatory bodies to prevent similar issues in future.

  Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888