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 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 4/5th share. The co-owners are alleged to be respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who contend that Mrs. Geetadevi is in fact questioning the partition deed dated 18 December 1968 under which their exclusive ownership rights have stood crystallized, that too in the year 2025. It is contended that Mrs. Geetadevi by approaching the Chief Officer of the Board is asserting the rights which are certainly not subsisting. It is also the contention of the owners and the petitioner that the lawful rights qua the property in question are legally and validly conferred on the petitioner to redevelop the same under an agreement dated 30 May 2019, which is duly registered and the redevelopment has progressed of the 16 floors building and has now reached upto 10 floors.

3. It is at this stage, it is contended by Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Mrs. Geetadevi has made attempts to interfere with the construction by not filing a civil suit to assert her rights but by approaching different authorities. He submits that firstly she approached the municipal corporation when a stop work notice was issued, which was assailed in the proceedings as filed by the petitioner. The stop work notice was stayed by this Court. Mrs. Geetadevi simultaneously approached the Chief Officer of the Board by making a representation dated 18 June 2025 asserting legal rights in respect of the property in question. It is on the basis of such representation that the Chief Officer passed the impugned order. The impugned order reads thus:

                   “ No.R/Cancellation of NOC/F-2691/8837/MBRRB-2025

                   Date: 13 October 2025

                   To,

                   Kumar Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.,

                   Kumar Capital, 2413 East Street Camp,

                   Pune 411 001.

                   Sub: Redevelopment of Property situated at C.S.No.2A/296 of Tardeo Divn., in D Ward, bearing Cess No.D-3696(7), situated at 57-B, Tukaram Javji Marg, Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007, known as "Satyabhama Building" Cancellation of NOC.

                   Ref: 1) The NOC issued by this office vide letter No.R/NOC/F- 2691/7480/M.B.R. & R. Board-19, dated 20.09.2019.

                   2) Representation dated 18.06.2025 from Advocate Narvankar Legal Chambers on behalf of Mrs. Geetadevi Pratapsinh Jadhav & Others.

                   With reference to the NOC issued by this office for redevelopment of the property bearing C.S. No.2A/296 of Tardeo Division under the provisions of DCR 33(7), the following facts have come to light upon further examination of the updated property records:

                   1. At the time of submission of the redevelopment proposal, the Property Register Card dated 05.03.2018 reflected Shri Samir Shyamsundar Thakre and Shri Vaibhav Shyamsundar Thakre as the owners of the said property, based on which the Development Agreement registered under BBE1-3862- 2019 dated 14.06.2019 was executed and the NOC dated 20.09.2019 for redevelopment was granted by this office.

                   2. Subsequently, a representation was received from Narvankar Legal Chambers on behalf of Smt. Geetadevi Pratapsinh Jadhav and others, along with an order of the Superintendent, Mumbai City Survey & Land Records dated 27.05.2025. The said order categorically set aside the mutation entries made in favour of Shri. Samir and Shri. Vaibhav Thakre and directed restoration of ownership in the name of the original record holder, Shri. Pandurang Javji Choudhary.

                   3. In this regard, despite repeated opportunities given to NOC holder and Shri Samir Shyamsundar Thakre and Shri Vaibhav Shyamsundar Thakre, no stay order or interim protection was produced on record till date.

                   4. Upon verification of the property records of C.S. Nos 2A/296 of Tardeo Division, it is observed that the title to the property has been changed in the name of Pandurang Javji Choudhary As such the development rights earlier granted by the previous owners (Shri Samir Thakre and Shri Vaibhav Thakre) are no longer valid.

                   5. As such, the legal basis for the redevelopment ie, development rights from the lawful owners no longer exists. Any continuation of redevelopment activity based on the now-invalid agreement is without legal standing and contravenes prevailing property ownership and development norms.

                   In light of the above, to safeguard the rights of lawful owners Shri. Pandurang Javji Choudhary, the NOC issued by this office vide No.R/NOC/F-2691/7480/MBRRB-2019 dated 20.09.2019 in favour of M/s. Kumar Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. for redevelopment of subjected property is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. You are hereby directed to immediately cease all redevelopment work on the said property.

                   (Milind Shambharkar)

                   Chief Officer,

                   M.B.R&R.Board, Mumbai.”

4. Mr. Naik in assailing the impugned order has contended that the impugned order crosses all norms of legitimacy and in fact there is clear malice not only on facts but also in law. He submits that the impugned order is patently illegal inasmuch as the Chief Officer cannot wield any authority to grant a declaration qua the legal rights of the parties at all and only the Civil Court can grant such declaration considering the observations as made in paragraph (5). It is submitted that the Chief Officer also did not have jurisdiction, that too, considering the facts of the case that the construction is in progress, to take any decision on issues as asserted by Mrs. Geetadevi, which could have been asserted only in legal proceedings before the Civil Court. It is submitted that in taking such position as contained in the impugned cancellation of the NOC, the basic rights of ownership which flow from the documents of title are completely given a go by merely on revenue entries, and on such sole basis purportedly a declaration has been given that the owners would not have any rights.

5. Mr. Naik submits that the approach of Mrs. Geetadevi is peculiar, that is, not approaching the Civil Court to assert any rights if at all she had any, to assail the document of the year 1968 in the year 2024-25, and therefore, by such novel method, by approaching the authorities which are concerned with the development permissions, hurdles are sought to be created by such extra legal measures, causing serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner as also the owners of the land as guaranteed under Article 300A read with Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. It is Mr. Naik’s submission that the impugned order is a patent abuse of the authority as vested in the Chief Officer, as it recognizes no rationale and is contrary to what is expected from the public servants who are higher officials. Mr. Naik has also contended that it is a recent trend that private parties do not take recourse to legal proceedings and approach such authorities, seeking orders of the nature as impugned. In such context, it is submitted that the Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation in M/s. Atria Construction vs. The Municipal Commissioner, Pune & Ors.(2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4614). Our attention is drawn to the following relevant observations of the Court:-

                   ““70. This apart, one of the most glaring aspects of the present matter is the conduct, not only of the officials who have issued the impugned stop work notice, but also of respondent No.5 to garner extra legal interference of several persons who have attended the hearing fixed by the Executive Engineer on 9 December 2024. Such persons had no official concern whatsoever in regard to anything to do between the petitioner and/or Wellbuild/respondent No.5-the owners who handed over the project to be executed by the petitioner. The official machinery of the respondents was totally misused by Wellbuild along with such persons, more particularly one Mr. Vikas Shravan Kuchekar, who had attended the hearing and who also filed an Intervention Application. Rejecting such Intervention Application, we have passed a detailed order, considering the statements of the intervenor as made before the Court. From the perusal of our order on the Intervention Application, things get abundantly clear that the intervenor is no less than a busybody who could not justify his presence in the proceedings before the City Engineer. He also could not justify from where he obtained the intricate information which is completely internal to the project and more particularly in regard to the relation between the petitioner and respondent No.5. It appears that the intervenor’s role is purely on extraneous considerations, who could not have been involved except to help those who had an axe to grind against the petitioner. He appears to have been introduced to obtain an unfair advantage by adopting such pressurizing tactics before the municipal officers, by utilizing the resourceful nature of intervenor. Similar comments can be made against others, however, they are not before the Court. The orders passed by this Court in the intervenor’s application, in fact, would speak volumes about the high-handed and arbitrary manner of the Municipal officials in issuing the impugned stop work notice, thereby bringing the petitioner’s project which is at a stage of grant of occupation certificate of Wing “D” as also the construction of Tower “C” to a grinding halt.

                   71. Such conduct of the municipal officers has also deprived the legitimate flat purchasers of early occupation of their flats, having purchased the flats in “D” wing. This more particularly when the construction of “D” Wing’ is completed long back and awaits an occupation certificate. It has also delayed the construction of “C” wing in respect of which the plans are also sanctioned. In these circumstances, in our opinion, this is a clear case where, Wellbuild/ respondent No.5 by misuse of the official machinery of the Municipal Corporation has caused or obtained the impugned order of stopping of work, in respect of the project. Such order otherwise would not have even been passed.

                   72. We may observe that this is also a case, where the impugned decision has been taken in extreme haste, inasmuch as a totally cryptic and unreasoned show cause notice dated 6 December 2024 was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to remain present, without a whisper of details as to why such hearing was called for, what were the deficiencies, if any, as also no material whatsoever of any complaints received by the Municipal Corporation was provided to the petitioner alongwith the notice dated 6 December 2024. The hearing on the said notice was held on 9 December 2024, and immediately on the next date i.e. on 10 December 2024 the impugned stop work order has been passed. This apart, as noted above, several persons unconnected with the project who are social workers attended the hearing. Their presence in the said hearing was totally unjustified and unwarranted. Also the impugned stop work order clearly appears to have been passed at their behest. In such context, the settled principle of law is that if a decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same is required to be held to be ultra vires. This is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia And Ors.(2004 (2) SCC 65) wherein the Supreme Court has observed thus:

                   “25. In S. P. Kapoor (Dr) V. State of H.P.((1981)4 SCC 716) this Court held that when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fide would be presumed, stating:(SCC p.739, para 33)

                   “33. …..The post-haste manner in which these things have been done on 3-11-1979 suggests that some higher-up was interested in pushing through the matter hastily when the Regular Secretary, Health and Family Welfare was on leave.”

                   26. It is also well settled that if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be ultra vires. (See Commr. Of Police V. Gordhandas Bhanji(AIR 1952 SC 16) and Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commr.((1978)1 SCC 405))”.

                   73. Now coming to the decisions which are cited by Mr. Godbole, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner supporting the proposition that the impugned decision of the Deputy Engineer and City Engineer, to order stop work of the project, is arbitrary and high-handed by relying on the decisions in Dr. S. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.((1981)4 SCC 716); Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.((2009)10 SCC 388); Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab((2010)11 SCC 455); Rajiv Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.((2017)8 SCC 791). There cannot be any dispute on the principle of law as laid down in these decisions. We do not intend to burden the judgment by discussing these decisions, suffice it to observe that in the present case, the action on the part of the concerned officials who have issued the impugned stop work notice, certainly in no manner satisfies the test of law and accordingly, we had held the impugned stop work notice to be grossly arbitrary, high-handed and illegal.

                   74. We may observe that this is a clear case where Wellbuild appears to have clearly exceeded its contractual position with the petitioner, as discussed in detail hereinabove. However, what surprises us is the conduct of the municipal officials as to how without verifying the records, without any site inspection to identify any breaches of any building permissions or any other permissions and above all without issuance of an appropriate show cause notice merely on purported complaints of busybodies and/or certain unknown persons could have resorted to exercise powers affecting and prejudicing the civil rights of the petitioner. This more particularly knowing well that the construction of Wing 'D' was complete and would be required to be granted an occupation certificate. The municipal officials could not have acted so casually. They have acted so as their intentions appear to have been completely taken over by extraneous considerations, by virtue of which they have decided to discard all norms of legitimacy, legality, fairness, transparency and non discrimination in their actions as public officials . The Municipal Commissioner in the facts of the present case needs to investigate the role of these officials and the object and motive of these officials in taking the impugned action, and place an action taken report on the record of this Court within a period of six weeks. After such report is received, the Registrar Judicial shall list the matter after six weeks for recording compliance. This more importantly keeping in mind the basic principle of legitimate expectations of the citizens from public officials. A stitch in time save nine.

                   … … ..

                   76. Before parting, as a Constitutional Court we would be failing in our duty, if we do not deprecate the arbitrary and high handed action on the part of the concerned officials of the Pune Municipal Corporation who were instrumental/involved in taking the impugned decision. In our clear opinion, despite judicial orders, including the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court (supra) in the Section 37 ACA proceedings, the petitioner was made to suffer not only on account of delay in completion of the project but also suffer the pain and agony of the present litigation. Thus, the petition cannot be simplicitor allowed, it would be required to be allowed by ordering payment of exemplary costs. If we do not pass an order as to costs, the message would be that despite such arbitrary and high-handed conduct of the municipal officials which is purely at the behest of private parties, these officials can comfortably get away, so as to indulge in similar high-handed practices in future, in regard to other parties. When under the law, public officials are conferred such drastic powers, there is an onerous duty and responsibility cast on them to exercise such powers only in accordance with law and not on extraneous considerations. The actions of the public authorities can never be arbitrary, malafide and high-handed. In this view of the matter, we direct that the concerned officials including the City Engineer who are directly involved in passing the impugned order/stop work notice shall, jointly and severally, pay cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the petitioner. Such cost be paid to the petitioner within two weeks from today. If the same is not paid, the Municipal Commissioner shall recover the same in accordance with law.

                   77. Further, all the concerned illegalities have taken place at the behest of respondent No.5-Wellbuild who itself is a developer. Considering our observations, respondent No.5-Wellbuild has misused the official machinery of the municipal corporation in the manner which has shocked our conscience although it had pure contractual relations with the petitioner. It has nullified the orders passed by the Courts as noted by us hereinabove. Accordingly, respondent No.5/Wellbuild also has become liable to be ordered to pay exemplary cost to the petitioner. It is accordingly directed that respondent No.5-Wellbuild shall pay cost of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only) to the petitioner within two weeks from today.”

7. We find that there is an increasing tendency of persons to approach the public officials, who are vested with high powers, which can be exercised in respect of the constructions and projects being undertaken which involve substantial investments and resources. In the present case, we are confronted with the issue of such NOC which was granted as far back as on 20 September 2019 and things having proceeded under the said NOC, with the construction having reached upto the 10th floor. In such circumstances, it was an onerous duty of the concerned officer before passing such drastic orders, to examine all the issues and after obtaining a legal opinion, the said officer could have appropriately exercised powers as vested in him and not such powers which a Civil Court can exercise, as seen from the impugned order. There would be hence substance in Mr. Naik’s contention that such order would be flawed when tested on the principles of malice in fact and law and/or the same being high handed and/or being passed on consideration not known to law. Such order has set at naught the valuable rights of the owners and the petitioner guaranteed under Article 300A and Article 14 of the Constitution, certainly the legal rights of the petitioner who is undertaking the development by investment of substantial resources have been seriously prejudiced, as all such rights are rightly contended to be taken away on most flimsy and untenable reasons as the impugned communication would ex-facie indicate. Such casual approach on the part of public officials cannot be countenanced. We do not know in what manner the prejudice and the losses which are suffered by the petitioner, can at all be compensated when they are caused due to such high-handed and illegal action on the part of the officers.

8. However, there is wiseness which has prevailed, considering the nature of the illegality being urged on behalf of the petitioner, when Mr. Lad, learned Counsel for the Board is taking a fair stand, to state that he has taken instructions that the impugned order would stand withdrawn and consequently the same shall not be acted upon. We accept the statement as made by Mr. Lad. We accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13 October 2025 cancelling the NOC as granted by the Board, being withdrawn. The consequence would be that the petitioner should now be permitted to undertake the redevelopment as per the NOC granted and strictly as per the sanctioned plan.

9. Considering such stand taken on behalf of MHADA, we refrain from following the course of action as followed by this Court in M/s.Atria Construction (supra). However, while parting we sound a note of caution that in such matters the high officers who have the entire legal department at their disposal, need to act with utmost responsibility and/or cannot act in such manner and much less on considerations, which are miles away from what the law would mandate. When the statute vests such large powers with the officers / authority, the exercise of such powers is equally coupled with an onerous duty to act in accordance with law and due adherence to the constitutional principles in dealing with such issues. The reason being that valuable legal rights of the citizens / parties are actually being interfered and/or dealt with in passing such orders. With such note of caution, for the future, we intend to close the proceedings. However, we observe that if such instances are repeated, there would be no option for the Court but to take a serious view of the matter qua the concerned officials.

10. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.