The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd and directed the builder to complete and hand over eight buildings under the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) rental housing scheme. The court's order comes after the builder failed to meet its obligations under the 2008 agreement to provide affordable housing for the homeless in exchange for additional development rights.

Background of the Dispute

In 2008, Neelkamal Realtors took on a development project in the Mahajanwadi area within the Mira-Bhayandar Municipal Corporation (MBMC) jurisdiction. Under the state’s rental housing scheme (RHS), the builder was granted 4 FSI (Floor Space Index). The agreement stipulated that 25% of the plot be used to construct eight buildings, which would be handed over to MMRDA with 1 FSI for affordable rental housing. The remaining 75% of the plot was to be developed for free-sale construction, utilising the 3 FSI benefit.

While the builder completed and sold 26 buildings with the additional FSI, he failed to complete the eight buildings meant for MMRDA, as required under the terms of the scheme. These buildings, which were supposed to house small flats for the homeless, have remained incomplete.

Court's Ruling and Builder's Defence

The court observed that while the rental housing scheme was abolished in 2013-14, the builder continued with the construction using the 3 FSI and profited from the sale of 26 buildings, without fulfilling the agreement to transfer eight buildings for MMRDA’s use. Neelkamal Realtors had argued that since the scheme was scrapped and the project was still ongoing, they should be allowed to transition to the new Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR), which would allow for greater construction potential.

The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that the builder could not "wriggle out" of the original agreement and must adhere to the terms of the scheme, which had already been utilised for profit. The judges noted that the builder had delayed the completion of the eight buildings, despite benefiting from the rental housing scheme.

Implications of the Court's Order

The Bombay High Court’s ruling emphasises that developers who benefit from state schemes cannot disregard their obligations, especially when the public welfare is involved. The decision to complete and hand over the eight buildings to MMRDA will ensure that the housing needs of the homeless are met and that the intent of the rental housing scheme is honoured.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s directive is a significant step in holding developers accountable to their commitments under government schemes. By enforcing the completion of affordable housing units for the homeless, the court is ensuring that the benefits of such schemes are directed towards those who need them the most, while upholding the integrity of Mumbai’s urban development processes.