Bombay HC Raps Collector Over Housing Society NOC Demand for Marine Drive Property

The Bombay High Court has reprimanded the Mumbai city collector for demanding a No Objection Certificate from a housing society on Marine Drive as a pre-condition for registering a court consent decree. The decree relates to the transfer of commercial premises to sibling restaurateurs Sanjay Narang and Rachna Narang.

A division bench comprising Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait Sethna delivered the verdict on Monday, ruling that revenue authorities had no legal authority to create such hurdles. The judges noted that the revenue authorities, specifically the joint sub-registrar and the collector, were required to act in furtherance of and in deference to the court's decree rather than creating unwarranted obstacles.

The court observed that the collector chose to tread on an improper path by demanding a no-objection document from the co-operative housing society, a condition that is not mandated under the law.

The property dispute revolves around a 186-square-foot shop named 'Pushp Milan' and an adjoining 2,530-square-foot restaurant space situated on the ground floor of Soona Mahal CHSL on Marine Drive. Society members Khorshed Udwadia and Adi Nazir had claimed ownership of both commercial spaces.

Udwadia had previously entered into an agreement to sell the shop premises to Mars Enterprises and Hospitality Pvt Ltd, a company operated by the Narangs. Following subsequent disputes, a lawsuit filed by Udwadia was ultimately resolved through consent terms, which were formally decreed by the court in December 2022.

Administrative delays followed when the parties sought registration. In July 2024, the joint sub-registrar stated that because the suit premises stood on land belonging to the collector, a no-objection certificate from the collector would be required.

Following an application submitted by the Narangs, the collector in September 2024 directed them to provide a no-objection certificate from Soona Mahal CHSL. The High Court set aside the requirement, clarifying that such an insistence by the collector had no legal backing.