KUMAR AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD vs MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY

Judgment text excerpt

Digitally 9WPL-39398-25.DOC signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT VILAS RANE VILAS RANE Date: 2026.02.21 20:28:13 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 39398 of 2025 M/s.Kumar Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner VS Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents __________ Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate with Janay Jain with Miheer Jayakar with Rishabh Jadhav i/b. Parinam Law Associates, for Petitioner. Mr. P. G. Lad with Sayali Apte, Aparna Kalathil, for Respondent No.2 – MHADA. Mr. Joydeep Deo, for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. __________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 17 February 2026. P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed essentially challenging the communication dated 13 October 2025 issued by the Chief Officer of the Mumbai Building Repairs & Reconstruction Board (for short ‘the board’) constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). By the impugned communication, the NOC granted to the owners of the property in question i.e. respondent Nos.4 and 5 (for short ‘the owners’), dated 20 September 2019 has been cancelled on a representation dated 18 June 2025 received from the Advocates of one Mrs. Geetadevi Pratapsinh Jadhav (for short ‘Mrs. Geetadevi’) and others. The petitioner is a developer appointed by the owners, who are presently undertaking redevelopment of the building, the construction of which has substantially progressed and has reached Page 1 of 10 P. V. Rane 9WPL-39398-25.DOC upto the 10th floor. 2. It appears that Mrs. Geetadevi is claiming a share in the property in question. From what is contended at the bar, she is asserting her 4/5 th share. The co-owners are alleged to be responde