Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) of Maharashtra's Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 Validated; Acquisition for Urban Renewal Deemed Public Purpose; Writ Petitions Dismissed
In a landmark judgment dated October 23, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat) dismissed writ petitions challenging the land acquisition carried out under the Cluster Development Scheme (CDS) in Mumbai's Bhendi Bazaar area. The petitioners, led by Moiz Dawoodbhai Palitanawala and others, had contested the acquisition of their properties by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and the Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust (the implementing agency) under Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR), framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act).
The petitioners primarily argued that the impugned Regulation was ultra vires the MRTP Act and the Constitution of India, contending that acquisition could only be undertaken for lands "designated" or "reserved" for public purpose in the development plan, which they claimed was not the case with their properties. They further challenged the delegation of acquisition powers to the Deputy Collector, alleged violation of principles of natural justice, and asserted that the acquisition infringed their constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution. An additional claim was raised that the property was a waqf property, requiring special procedural safeguards under the Waqf Act, 1995.
Rejecting these contentions, the High Court held that:
1. The Development Control Regulations (DCPR) are an integral part of the final development plan under Sections 22(m), 125, 126, and 159 of the MRTP Act. The term "required" used in Sections 125 and 126 empowers acquisition of land needed for public purpose even if not specifically "designated" or "reserved" in the development plan. Therefore, Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) of DCPR, which provides for acquisition to implement the CDS, is intra vires the MRTP Act.
2. The Regulation was framed following the statutory procedure under Section 37(1AA) of the MRTP Act, including publication of draft regulations, inviting public objections and suggestions, and consideration thereof, thus negating claims of excessive delegation or lack of public participation.
3. Urban renewal through cluster redevelopment in congested localities like Bhendi Bazaar constitutes "public purpose" within the meaning of the law. The scheme improves housing, roads, drainage, sanitation, and civic infrastructure, serving the larger community interest. The involvement of a promoter/developer or trust does not negate the public nature of the purpose.
4. The acquisition process complied with the legal provisions. The Deputy Collector's authority was validly delegated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013), and the Maharashtra Rules, 2014. Procedural requirements, including notice and hearing, were fulfilled, and no prejudice to the petitioners was shown.
5. The subject building qualified as a "dangerous building" under the DCPR, as it was more than 100 years old, classified as a category `A' cessed building under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, and had received warning notices regarding its dilapidated condition.
6. Compensation was determined under the Act of 2013 and offered to the petitioners, who had also invoked statutory remedies for enhancement of compensation.
7. Regarding the Waqf Act challenge, the Waqf Board was given notice and did not apply within the statutory period to declare the award void; moreover, it had no objection to the acquisition.
8. The writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to interfere with the acquisition after possession and substantial progress of redevelopment, especially since only a small minority opposed the scheme and the larger public interest prevailed.
The Court emphasized that urban renewal is a dynamic and necessary process for cities like Mumbai to ensure humane living conditions in congested areas. The cluster development scheme, supported by the majority of landowners and tenants, and backed by adequate legal safeguards, serves the public good.
Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the legality of the acquisition, including the impugned Regulation and acquisition awards, was upheld.
Bottom Line:
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 - Cluster Development Scheme in Bhendi Bazaar - Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) held intra vires MRTP Act and Article 300A - DCPR forms part of development plan - land "required" for public purpose under DCPR can be acquired under Section 126 MRTP Act even if not separately reserved or designated in development plan - acquisition for urban renewal through cluster development is public purpose - challenge to notification, award and possession rejected.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Sections 22(m), 31(1), 37(1AA), 125, 126, 159; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sections 3(g), 19(1), 21, 64; Maharashtra Rules, 2014 Rule 2(g); Waqf Act, 1995 Section 91; Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 Section 84
