Observing that a Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) order could have rendered the grievance of more than 100 flat buyers in one of Navi Mumbai’s most prominent housing projects “infructuous”, Bombay high court stayed all further development of Bhagwati Greens Phase 2 in Kharghar, till March 29.
The association of flat buyers had come before the HC to challenge the “perverse and unreasoned” MahaRERA order.
The HC bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale on Wednesday was surprised at the March 6 MahaRERA order. The association of flat buyers had filed a complaint with MahaRERA, alleging the builder, Bhagwati Developers, had proposed a fourth tower in a “multi-play area”.
At the very first hearing on March 6, 2023, when both sides were present, MahaRERA said since the flat buyers desired a decision on merits, although the builder was ready for conciliation, “the matter was to be heard on merits as per seniority, presumably thereby meaning in due course”, said the HC. MahaRERA passed no order of status quo, noted the HC, adding “and there was no consideration of either the law or the facts”.
The project, comprising three residential towers, is to build 200 flats. The association’s counsel, Cherag Balsara, said on offer were common amenity areas, including a lawn, a swimming pool and a multi-play area, for the three towers. An RTI query revealed that now in the multi-play area, a fourth tower is proposed. A revised layout in 2023 by the developer shows the plot is to be used for future development, which Balsara said is impermissible under Section 7 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) without the consent of buyers.
Balsara submitted, “In a similar complaint on an adjacent plot by allottees of Phase 3 of another Bhagwati Greens project, on 17th May 2022, another bench of (MahaRERA) granted a status quo order.”
Justice Patel and Gokhale said, “Prima facie it is difficult to see how some sort of protective order was found not to be necessary until at least affidavits in reply were filed and parties were more fully heard.” To give the builder time to respond, the HC fixed the matter on March 29.
“No further development of any kind is to take place on the disputed site… until the next date,” directed the HC but clarified that the builder “can proceed to submit its plans for processing, but those plans, if sanctioned, are not to be acted on and there is to be no work at site until the next date.”