Today, we will discuss a very critical issue: redevelopment. Redevelopment involves fundamental rights, Article 300A, Guideline 79A, and managing committees. Before we proceed, I kindly request you to like, subscribe, and share my channel since it is free of cost and the issues discussed here are relevant to the general public.

Let’s move forward with redevelopment. Redevelopment is a hot topic, and roughly every third building is undergoing redevelopment. It’s true.

Just as in life, according to Hindu scriptures, when we leave our body, our soul enters a new body and takes a new birth, similarly, an old building must be given new life through redevelopment. The first movement for redevelopment started in the Island City of Mumbai because all the old buildings, known as chawls, would get flooded during the monsoon season, and there were no laws to address this. Murli Deora, a senior leader, introduced a law for the redevelopment of dilapidated buildings. This law provided many benefits and initially applied to cess buildings from Churchgate, Colaba to Bandra.

Gradually, in 1991, the Development Control Regulations (DCR) were introduced, covering provisions for redevelopment of Mhada lands, slums, army and police headquarters, BMC properties, and housing societies. I have discussed all these in my book, "Commentary on Development Control Regulations 1991," which is now in its 15th edition.

Moving past 1991, in 2009, Guideline 79A was introduced for cooperative societies. Most redevelopment projects in Mumbai today are under this guideline. On January 3, 2009, these guidelines mandated that redevelopment projects be prepared by the managing committee. However, many complaints arose, such as managing committees not keeping members informed, lack of transparency, arbitrary appointments, and mismanagement during meetings like AGMs and SGMs. Often, committees behaved as if they were landlords and the flat owners were their tenants or slaves. They even recorded videos but did not share them with the members. When members approached the registrar, orders would take months or even a year, by which time the entire process was often derailed.

Another issue was lack of coordination between architects and project consultants, who often worked at cross purposes. Redevelopment projects were prepared without proper planning, and tenders were finalized unfairly. Agreements with developers lacked parity and clarity. After these concerns were raised, the government revised the guidelines through a Government Resolution (GR) on July 4, 2019, under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

I will share the link to this GR in the video description so you can read it. The 2019 guidelines state that one-fifth of society members can represent the committee to propose redevelopment, along with submitting schemes and suggestions. Within 8 days of receiving the application, the society must issue a notice for an SGM, which should be held within 14 days, followed by convening AGMs or SGMs. Quotations must be obtained from three architects and project management consultants to assess the viability of the redevelopment project.

However, problems persist. Sometimes the committee claims members’ consent without any scheme or decision in place. Is this legal? Often, committees record videos but do not share them with members. Can a committee take a blind signature without project details? These questions arise frequently in my cases, and I urge the government to pay attention.

Although the courts have said that the 2009 and 2019 guidelines are not mandatory, they should be followed. If these guidelines are violated, who is responsible? If a building collapses and is not rebuilt, is the managing committee responsible for pushing redevelopment? Once the majority agrees, stopping redevelopment becomes very difficult, and the minority is ignored. I will discuss these issues further.

If the committee violates the guidelines, who is accountable? The government that made the guidelines or the committee itself? Another provision mandates creating a website where all tender processes—architects, PMC, lawyers—are publicly notified and tendered. If this process is not followed, who is responsible? Usually, no one.

If a building is stalled for 10 years, the builder may stop paying rent or the property may change hands several times. After 10-12 years, the building may finally be rebuilt, but by then many original members may no longer be present. Inheritance disputes may arise, further delaying the project.

You can find these guidelines on my website www.shrutidesai.in by searching “Guidelines 79A Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.”

There is also concern that redevelopment violates Article 300A, which protects private property rights. For example, the Bombay High Court in the case of Purnima Talkies vs. Chief Officer, Dhanu Nagar Panchayat ruled on land acquisition, where the government acquires land and compensates the owner. Redevelopment is not exactly land acquisition, but it involves demolishing and reconstructing flats. The law requires due process before private property is acquired or disposed of; otherwise, it violates rights.

Supreme Court judgments like Kalyani through Legal Representative vs. Sultan Bathery Municipal Corporation emphasize the right to fair compensation and due process. While minority dissenting members have no say unless their objection is genuine, the majority’s decision prevails.

If redevelopment takes 3, 4, or even 12 years, do the rights of members get affected? Protections like bank guarantees exist, but enforcing them can require going to court, which is difficult for common people. If the initial process initiated by the managing committee is flawed, the entire project is compromised.

Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, any acquisition without compensation, TDR (Transfer of Development Rights), or FSI (Floor Space Index) is invalid. This judicial precedent was reaffirmed in the Purnima Talkies case.

My suggestion is that the government should provide an alternative option for members who want to take full compensation, market value of TDR, and other benefits and exit the redevelopment process. Many people who have gone through this process would agree that the government should make these guidelines mandatory.

If any committee members impose their will arbitrarily, a special committee or authority should be created to protect minority members. The Bombay High Court has already set up a special committee for senior citizens. I have written a book titled Redevelopment in Maharashtra ; which discusses this in detail.

This special judicial authority should not be the usual court but a dedicated body, as Deputy Registrars have many other duties and should not be burdened.

I request our Cooperative Minister, Mr. Amit Shah, to pay attention to this issue. People’s hard-earned money is at stake and wasted in many stalled projects. While some projects have succeeded, many more have failed due to these systemic problems.

Shruti Desai

30 May 2025