Section 95A MHADA Act | Executive Engineer Has Power To Initiate Eviction Proceedings If Authorized By Chief Officer Of The Board: Bombay High Court

"The Executive Engineer under Section 95A is not expected to arrogate to himself the jurisdiction vested in the Civil Court and Co-operative Court and decide issues raised by the appellants in those proceedings." Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 7th October 2026, held that the Executive Engineer is competent to initiate and conduct proceedings under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, provided they are duly authorized by the Chief Officer of the Board.

A division bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam A. Ankhad observed that the statutory scheme permits the Authority’s powers and functions to be exercised through the Boards and their authorized officers, rejecting the contention that such power can only be exercised by the Board itself.

Administrative Hierarchy Under MHADA Act

The court analyzed the scheme of the MHADA Act, noting that Section 16(1)(e) explicitly identifies the Chief Officers of the Boards as authorities charged with carrying out the provisions of the Act. The bench emphasized that the Chief Officer is an integral part of the administrative machinery, and the power conferred upon the Board can be discharged through this established functional hierarchy.

"No Requirement For Every Executive Act To Be Preceded By A Fresh Board Resolution"

The judges clarified that the provisions relating to meetings of the Board under Sections 25 to 27 do not require every routine administrative or executive act to be preceded by a fresh resolution of the Board. Such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the administrative machinery created by the legislature, effectively rendering the role of the Chief Officer otiose.

"The mere fact that certain subsequent obligations remain to be performed cannot invalidate the action under Section 95A."

Section 95A Is A Summary Procedure

The court reiterated that Section 95A was introduced as a special provision for the summary eviction of occupiers to facilitate redevelopment and is not intended to be a substitute for a full-fledged civil trial. The bench observed that the requirement of fairness is satisfied when the affected occupants are given notice of the proposed action and a meaningful opportunity to present their case before the competent authority.

Compliance With NOC Conditions At Different Stages

Regarding the petitioners' grievance concerning non-compliance with No Objection Certificate (NOC) conditions, the court held that conditions operate at different stages, including conditions precedent and conditions subsequent. The mere fact that certain obligations remain to be performed does not invalidate eviction proceedings under Section 95A, provided the developer remains bound by the statutory and contractual requirements.

No Jurisdictional Error Found

The court found that the executive action in the present case was not a unilateral assumption of jurisdiction but was duly authorized by the Chief Officer’s administrative orders. Distinguishing the present case from Javed Abdul Rahim Attar and Sahni Silk Mills, the bench concluded that there was no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, ultimately dismissing the writ petitions.

Date of Decision: 07 October 2026