The case originated from a writ petition filed by the appellants before the Bombay High Court, which initially granted a stay on the jurisdictional grounds of MHADA's authority over freehold land. However, the High Court subsequently dismissed the petition, a decision that was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

The appellants claimed to have approached the residents for redevelopment and secured agreements from individual members, incurring an expenditure of ?17.31 Crores in the initial stages. They argued that the project stalled due to the residents lacking proper title deeds, despite having Sanads issued between 1954 and 1987. The appellants asserted that they facilitated the issuance of proper conveyances by the President of India to the families, and that MHADA's subsequent intervention with an e-tender, based on government resolutions, was unwarranted as the land was privately owned.

 

 

 

 

The Bombay High Court, however, found the writ petition to be unsustainable. It opined that the appellants' recourse, if any, lay against the individual residents with whom they had agreements, particularly since these agreements were unregistered and their validity would need to be established in a civil court. The High Court noted that the government's decision to entrust the redevelopment to MHADA was based on the request of a majority of the residents who favored development through the government nodal agency. The High Court also raised concerns about the appellants' claimed expenditure, finding discrepancies in the disbursement of corpus funds to the residents and suggesting an attempt to mislead the court with incomplete information.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants' senior counsel argued that under Regulation 33(9) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR), MHADA could not intervene when a majority of residents had already entered into a development agreement with a private developer. They contended that considerable amounts had been spent, and conveyances facilitated at their instance. The government's intervention, triggered by an MLA's letter, was based on the incorrect assumption that the land belonged to the government. While a majority of residents and societies initially agreed to the appellants' plan, they later made a "volte-face," allegedly due to governmental influence. The appellants also highlighted that MHADA's e-tender offered a larger built-up area (635 sq. ft.) than their original agreement (550 sq. ft.), undertaking to match the offer to allay residents' concerns.

Senior counsel for a majority of the 25 societies reiterated that the residents were suffering due to the appellants' non-compliance with the alleged agreement terms. They argued that the appellants were attempting to bypass civil remedies and stall the MHADA-initiated redevelopment to coerce residents. They clarified that the government's intervention was prompted by a prior letter from 716 flat owners seeking assistance, predating the MLA's communication.

The court also addressed the appellants' claim of contractual rights. It highlighted that the appellants' development proposal dated back to 2010, and the redevelopment process was initiated in 2012, yet no construction had commenced. The claimed expenditure of ?17 Crores lacked proper substantiation. The court also noted the High Court's finding that the corpus fund disbursement was limited to a fraction of the total residents.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the appellants lacked the locus standi to challenge the e-tender, as they had failed to demonstrate a vested right to carry out the development, particularly in the absence of registered agreements and given their non-compliance with the promises made. The court found no reason to entertain the appeal and accordingly dismissed it.