Gujarat High Court
The Mrudulpark Co-Operative Housing ... vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21637 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
THE MRUDULPARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR PRIYAM M SHAH(12095) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR MANISH SHAH for MR MIHIR VAKHARIYA(8336) for the Respondent(s) No.
3,4
MS GARGI R VYAS(7983) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed seeking to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to hand over peaceful vacant possession of their respective flats being Flat Nos. 5 and 6 in Building No. 2 situated at Mrudul Park C-operative Housing Society Limited. The said prayer is made pursuant to the decision of majority members of the petitioner society, to initiate process of redevelopment.
Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
2. Brief facts as referred in the petition are as under:
2.1. Petitioner herein is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (Cooperative Society Act) bearing registration No.D-1823/66 dated 22.12.1966. It is case of the petitioner-Society that after obtaining commencement certificate in the year 1967 total 7 buildings / blocks forming part of the petitioner - society were constructed in or around the year 1968 comprising of total 42 flats. Out of these 42 flats, at present majority members are residing in the flats in question on account of its dilapidated condition. The flats in questions are located on the land admeasuring 4515 sq.mtrs, of Final Plot No.3882 forming part of Town Planning Scheme No.20 situated at Mauje Kochrab, Taluka Sabarmati, Sub-District Ahmedabad-4. On account of dilapidated and dangerous condition of the society, majority members of the society had taken a conscious decision to redevelop flats in question. This decision was taken considering the building being 54 years old and its dilapidated condition. With regard to the condition of the building, reliance is placed on the notice under Section 264 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ("GPMC ACT" for short) dated 01.07.2021 followed by another notice dated 05.06.2024. Thus, on account of requirement of Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 being complied with, a decision was taken to go for redevelopment and, accordingly procedure contemplated under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Rules, 1974 was followed. Since respondent Nos.3 and 4 objected to give a peaceful vacant possession by not entering in to MOU, this petition was filed.
3. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr. Priyam Shah for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Deep Vyas for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah for respondent No.3 and 4 and learned advocate Ms. Gargi Vyas for respondent No.5 - M/s.SNK Buildcon (Developer).
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta submitted that in this case the provisions of Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 have been complied with. As stated in the facts herein above, more than 95% members had agreed for redevelopment in the special Annual General Body Meeting held on 20.09.2020 (page 71) and the resolution dated 20.09.2020, to that effect was passed. By referring to the resolution dated 20.09.2020, learned senior advocate submitted that in the Special Annual General Meeting of the society, a Committee has been constituted for proposed work of Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined redevelopment as decided by majority members. Thus, in the meeting dated 20.09.2020, it was resolved to form the redevelopment Committee, comprising of 07 members to carryout proposed work of redevelopment. It was also resolved to empower the redevelopment Committee to invite offers from developers and to appoint developer for redevelopment of the flats in question. Accordingly, in all 20 offers received from the developers and out of that 20 offers, 04 offers were short listed by redevelopment committee. Learned advocate in support of his submissions has relied upon averments at paragraph 5.6 of the petition. Accordingly, an offer received by respondent No.5 on 09.04.2021 was short listed and in the meeting dated 02.05.2021 (page 111) a resolution was passed by all 40 attending members in a Special General Body Meeting to appoint respondent No.5 as developer. Thus, the redevelopment committee authorised to do all such acts took a decision and therefore it may not be accepted that the procedure has not been followed. Learned advocate submitted that in the said meeting dated 02.05.2021 (page 111) respondent Nos.3 and 4 chose not to remain present. Once again respondent No.5 by communication dated 24.05.2021 gave the very offer which was earlier given on 09.04.2021 under name of M/s.SNK Buildcon, a project scientific entity for redevelopment of petitioner - society. Along with the offer Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined dated 24.05.2021, layout plans and new photographs were provided. Thereafter, in the month of May - July, 2021, 40 members of the petitioner - society (95.23% of the total members) agreed and consented for redevelopment of the petitioner - society by appointing respondent No.5, as developer. Thus, a conscious voluntary decision was taken by majority members to allot work of redevelopment to respondent No.5. Further, in the month of July, 2021, notice was issued by respondent No.2 under Section 264 of GPMC Act indicating dilapidated and ruinous condition of the society. The petitioner responded to the said notice however, looking to the condition of the flats in question, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been executed between the petitioner and respondent No.5 for redevelopment (Annexure L page 277). Pursuant to execution of MOU by petitioner - society and respondent No.5 - M/s.SNK Buildcon the process with regard to seeking development permission was initiated. Accordingly, a draft development agreement was shared by email dated 12.03.2022 (page 375 with all the members). At that stage, the objections were received from respondent Nos.3 and 4. Learned senior advocate submitted that since respondent Nos.3 and 4 was not agreeable for the draft development agreement which was provided to the members the objections were asked and at that stage few objections with regard to some of the covenants Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined of the draft development agreement was raised. By referring to the communication from respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide its E- mail dated 24.03.2022 and 09.04.2022 page 391 and 394, learned senior advocate submitted that if the said objections are perused, they are technical in nature, without supporting documents and the same is contrary to the communication made that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not opposing to the redevelopment process, but the process should be clear and transparent. Learned senior advocate submitted that though the objections were raised with regard to the procedure and some of the covenants of the draft agreement, but since they were not substantiated by any document or not contrary to the provisions of Gujarat Ownership Flats Rules, the same are required not to be taken into consideration.
5. Learned senior advocate invited attention of this Court to Rules 20 to 23 of Gujarat Ownership Flats Rules, and submitted that the procedure as provided was followed. By referring the development agreement, it was further submitted that rights of members upon redevelopment, plan sanctioned, handing over of possession upon redevelopment, on payment of compensation for alternative accommodation, corpus, bank guarantee, obligations of the society and other aspect as required under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Rules have been Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined taken care of. Thus, when the majority members have taken a conscious decision to go for the redevelopment, the objections raised by minority, not supported by any of the Rules even though relied upon, deserves to be ignored. Reiterating the submissions, learned senior advocate submitted that requirement under law that when the building itself is more than 25 years old and in dilapidated and dangerous condition coupled with the fact that more than 75% members (in this case 95.23 %) have agreed other factors may have to be ignored. Accordingly, respondent Nos.3 and 4 may be directed to give peaceful vacant possession of their respective flat Nos.5 and 6, so that the process of redevelopment can be progressed. On the aspect of the project completion time and other objection like penalty, it was submitted that, the society had earlier applied for the development permission and since the time has lapsed, fresh application seeking development permission will be filed. Once the development permission is granted, the developer is required to be registered before the RERA authorities and the requirement of RERA Act will take care of other situation and therefore also the objections raised deserves to be ignored.
6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Mehta relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Swami Vivekanandnagar Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in Special Civil Application No.8530 of 2019 dated 21.06.2022.
7. Opposing the petition, learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that their main objection is with regard to procedure not followed under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Rules, 1974. Referring to the dates, learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the Redevelopment Committee of the society was appointed on 02.09.2020. Though public advertisement calling for offers is required to be issued, the Committee did not take care to go for the public advertisement inviting offers so that the best offer can be considered and therefore, there being no transparency in the procedure followed, this petition deserves rejection.
7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that earlier offer was received from respondent No.5 on 06.04.2021. Thereafter, fresh offer was received from M/s.SNK Buildcon on 09.04.2021- Respondent No.-5. Thereafter, new offer was proposed by respondent No.5 - M/s.SNK Buildcon on 24.05.2021. Since a new entity had given a proposal for redevelopment, and not the original entity with whom the society has agreed for redevelopment, the said offer deserves to be ignored. Referring Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined to Rule 19 of Gujarat Ownership Flats Rules and the Rules thereafter learned advocate Mr.Shah submitted that as required under said Rules, the appointment of Architect /Project Management Consultant is to be done first for preparation of redevelopment project and once such redevelopment project report has been prepared, the same is required to be accepted by majority member. In this case, this procedure is not followed. In this case, the offer given by respondent No.5 was accepted without there being any appointment of Architect / Project Management Consultant. Further, M/s.SNK Buildcon, being new entity the financial status needs verification and on this aspect there being no transparency, the redevelopment as sought for by directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to vacate their premises may not be accepted. Relying heavily on procedure enumerated under Rule 23 of the Rules, learned advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the Rule 23 refers to agreement with the developer. Under the said Rule, certain terms and conditions as referred in the said Rule are is to form part of the development agreement and after that it is required to be approved by Special General Body Meeting. If Draft Development Agreement is perused, then it does not refer to Clause 10 of Rule 23. In other words, there is no penalty clause provided in the draft development agreement. The earlier time limit fixed for 36 years has not been specified in Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined the draft development agreement. Moreover, as required under clause 1 of Rule 23 the period of completing redevelopment project has not been specified and therefore, there being lapses in the development agreement, the same may be ignored and respondent Nos.3 and 4 may not be directed to sign development agreement. Learned advocate submitted that Lavad Suit No.195/2023 is filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the same is pending. However, he could not dispute that the said suit is filed after filing of this petition and the grievance raised in the petition is subject matter of the said Lavad Suit. Therefore, there being non-compliance of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act and Rules and there being no transparency in the selection of developer, this petition deserves rejection.
8. Considered the submissions and decisions relied on. Relief prayed in this petition is to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to vacate their respective flats no. 5 and 6 for the purpose of redevelopment of the flats in question. Considering the two notices issued by the Municipal Corporation dated 01.07.2021 at page 274 followed by another notice dated 02.06.2024 at page 641, it is evident that the condition of the society is dilapidated and dangerous to use. Further, it is case of the petitioner that at present only two to three members are residing in the society, and they are not objecting to vacate Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined their premises, however, they are waiting for the transit allowance and the rent proposed to be paid so that they can shift to another premises. Further, there is no denial to the fact that the society was constructed in the year 1968 and, therefore, the construction is nearly 57 years old. Thereafter, on 20.09.2020 (page 71), 27 members attended a meeting and passed a resolution taking a decision, basis the dilapidated condition of the society that they proceed with redevelopment instead of repairs and maintenance. If a resolution dated 20.09.2020 is perused, it refers to the appointment of redevelopment committee comprising of 07 members and it was resolved that the said committee is empowered to invite offers from developers and thereafter to appoint a developer for redevelopment of the building of the petitioner society. Thus, the submission that the conscious decision in Special General Meeting for redevelopment of the society was taken, merit acceptance. In view of above referred facts in the opinion of this Court the requirement of Section 41 A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act that the society construction is more than 25 years old and more than 75 members (in this case 95.23%) had agreed for redevelopment is fulfilled.
8.1. Now taking note of grievance of objecting private respondent Nos.3 and 4, that society failed in following the Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined procedure as provided under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Rules, it would be appropriate to rerecord the procedure followed by the petitioner-Society. The society by its majority members firstly passed unanimous resolution on 20.09.2020, taking a decision to initiate action for redevelopment of the society. Accordingly, as many as 20 offers were received from the developer and out of that 04 have been short listed. Thereafter, considering the offer given by respondent No.5, a decision was taken to accept the proposal of given on 09.04.2021 by the developer. Accordingly, the resolution dated 02.05.2021 was passed wherein also all 40 members out of 42 members have agreed to accept the proposal of respondent No.5. At this stage, it cannot be ignored that respondent Nos.3 and 4 choose not to appear and had not raised objection or not offered better proposal than was given by the developer at that stage. Thereafter, it was unanimously agreed vide resolution dated 02.05.2021, to accept offer of developer. Next grievance raised is that offer given earlier was by different entity then M/s.SNK Buildcon - Respondent No.5, and Respondent No.5 gave offer on 24.05.2021, however, learned advocate on behalf of private respondent failed to point out change in proposal then earlier offered on 09.04.2021 or the offer prejudicial then the earlier one. Their grievance of change in entity in the opinion of this Court is not acceptable Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined at this stage because a conscious decision was taken by majority members to give redevelopment work to respondent No.5 particularly, when better offer was not available when the resolution dated 02.05.2021 was passed. Accordingly, 40 members have consented for giving the work of redevelopment to respondent No.5 and thereafter, MOU was entered into between the petitioner society and respondent No.5 for redevelopment. The MOU was executed on 22.07.2021 and the execution of development agreement by society was after the resolution of a General Body Meeting dated 02.05.2021, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the contention raised that there is no transparency and procedure not followed does not merit acceptance.
9. With regard to the other objections raised like Architect / Project Management Committee, was not appointed prior to selection of respondent No.5, as developer, it is noticed that the project report was submitted by respondent No.5 after execution of the MOU between the petitioner society and respondent No.5. Therefore, this being the sufficient compliance the objection raised is not tenable. The major grievance which raised by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is with regard to the project completion time and the penalty clause being not part of the draft development agreement. It is Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined noticed by this Court that project completion time is forming part of the development agreement between the parties. Moreover, forfeiture of bank guarantee upon eventuality of not fulfilling the conditions referred in the development agreement cannot be ignored to safeguard the interest of members of the Society and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the submission canvassed that there is no procedure followed does not merit acceptance. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to decision of this Court in the case of Swami Vivekanandnagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation wherein in paragraphs, 11.3, 11.4, 14.22, 39 and 52 it has been held as under:
"11.3. It is submitted that if it comes to the obedience of the statute it has to be done, save and except, the saving clause. It is submitted that the Rules of 1974 mandate appointment of the architect/project management consultant (hereinafter referred to as 'Pmc'), which is the first step towards the building redevelopment project followed by preparation of the project report by the architect/Pmc and issuance of notice inviting tenders for the redevelopment by the architect/Pmc followed by the preparation of the list of offers, selection of builder/developer, in accordance with the project report, specifications to be reduced in writing; however, no such steps were taken by the petitioner-society. Appointment of the architect/Pmc to properly redevelop the project has to be done; however, the petitioner-society has not complied Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined with the said requirement and straightaway adopted the earlier procedure/resolution validating the earlier action, which is definitely not permissible. Subsequent validation is impermissible inasmuch as, no proceedings can be validated post facto to claim adherence to the Rules by retrospectively notifying it in the society proceedings. It is further submitted that the theory proposed by the petitioner-society about the subsequent compliance is only with a view to circumvent the statutory Rules. It is submitted that the relaxation can be given only when the Rules are directory. Applying literal interpretation, Rules do not appear to be directory but are mandatory.
11.4. It is submitted that the argument of substantial compliance has no legs to stand inasmuch as, there has to be either complete compliance or no compliance. It is further submitted that the answer that the Rules are mandatory and not directory is discernible from the language contained in Rule 20 which uses the term "shall prepare the project report" it implies that the Rules are mandatory. It is further submitted that assuming the Court reads "shall" as "may", which is to be done in rarest of rare cases, then the Court will go by the language of the statute. It is submitted that the legislature is presumed to have the complete knowledge; it considers all the points and thereafter enacts the statutes, frames the rules and regulations, which are required to be observed in its letter and spirit. It is submitted that upon conjoint reading of Rule 19 and Rule 21, it would be difficult to accept "shall" as "may". It is further submitted that Regulation 23 provides for agreement with the developer. It envisages that subject to the terms and conditions as approved by the Special General Meeting of the building, a development agreement Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined shall be entered into with the developer in consultation with the architect/Pmc and therefore there is no room for interpreting the Rules as directory but has to be mandatory.
14.22. It is submitted that rule 18 of the Rules of 1974, provides for conditions for redevelopment project/work. As per one of the conditions, the building, should be more than 25 years of age. In the present case, the said requirement, stands fulfilled. It is further submitted that rule 19, is a procedure provided for redevelopment. It is submitted that so far as sub- rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 are concerned, there is no complaint.
The complaint is only against sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 which, provides for appointment of the architect/Pmc. So far as Rule 20 is concerned, it provides for the preparation of the project report which, shall contain the carpet area to be provided to the members; alternative accommodation; payment of rent; vacant area; garden; parking; building specifications; common area etc. It is submitted that in the present case, all the facilities and amenities, are made available to the members and therefore, one is to apply the principle of prejudice. The private respondents have not been able to show single prejudice caused to them by the facilities/amenities provided by the respondent no.4. So far as the compliance of Rule 21 and Rule 22 are concerned, the same is done and that there is no grievance. Rule 23, provides for execution of the development agreement and it should contain various clauses including the clause of bank guarantee. The bank guarantee has to be done but not at this stage and therefore, the arguments/grievance raised by the private respondents falls flat. It is therefore urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and necessary Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined directions be issued to the private respondents as well as Corporation to permit the petitioner-society to redevelop the property as per the development permission.
39. Moreover, the private respondent no.9.1 has raised the contention that the Rules mandate the appointment of the project management consultant/architect which is the first step towards the redevelopment process for buildings, fulfilling the conditions for redevelopment project/work, followed by preparation of the project report by the project management consultant etc. It is also the stand of the respondent no.9.1 that the proceedings cannot be validated post facto to claim adherence to the rules more particularly, when the society's application for redevelopment with the Corporation is made after the notification of the said Rules. The contention would not be in a right earnest for the following reasons.
52. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and more particularly, the respondent no.9.1, it is required to be noted that there is no quarrel to the proposition that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. Pertinently, the Rules of 1974 are framed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 44 read with Section 41A of the Act of 1973 and therefore, the rules are statutory in nature and to be adhered to. In the facts of the present case, it can be safely stated that there is substantial compliance of the rules; however, the minor aberrations cannot be fatal to the procedure adopted by the petitioner - society.
Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
10. In one another decision in the case of Amity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Through Its Secretary and Chairman vs. State of Gujarat, in Special Civil Application No.10596 of 2024 dated 08.04.2025, it is held in paragraph No.10 as under:
"10. One more aspect that, respondent No.5 Developer as per MOU is to initiate procedure to obtain necessary permissions and the registration from the authority concerned. The penalty payment is also not mandatory in nature. The penalty and bank guarantee are sought on assumptions and presumptions which could be taken care by obtaining project finance and project registration by RERA authority. Moreover, the affidavit filed by respondent No.5 supports the contentions of petition that due care shall be taken in relation to redevelopment work as per terms and conditions of the MOU."
11. Further, this court in the decision in the case of Rabari Tejmalbhai Gagabhai v. Ratnamani Cooperative Housing Society Limited in Letters Patent Appeal No.1427 of 2023, wherein it is held as under:
"8. Having extensively gone through the provisions of Section 41-A read with the Rules 18 to 25 made thereunder, we record that the society for carrying out redevelopment work of the building has to follow the terms and conditions as laid down in Section 41-A which are:-
(i) The building shall have completed the period of twenty -five years from the date of issuance of the development permission by the concerned authority;Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21637/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
(ii) The concerned authority has declared the building being in ruinous condition, i.e. declared it dilapidated and dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structure or place in the neighborhood thereof;
(iii) Consent of not less than 75% of the members of the building for redevelopment of the building has been obtained."
12. Therefore, in view of forgoing reasons, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner had followed the due procedure for the purpose of redevelopment of the flats in question and has fulfilled the conditions to fall within the ambit of Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973.
13. In view of aforesaid discussion, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of their respective flats to the petitioner society within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
14. With this, the present petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) NAIR SMITA V./04-SB-I Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:51:46 IST 2025