Mumbai Report Flags Lawyer Misleading Court Over Girgaum Redevelopment Notice Revocation Claim

Mumbai’s long-delayed redevelopment of a cessed building in Girgaum has come under renewed scrutiny after an internal review by the state housing authority flagged contradictions in legal submissions made before the Bombay High Court. The development has left tenants frustrated, as the core issue of their stalled rehabilitation remains unresolved despite administrative action against a panel advocate.

According to an internal note issued by the authority’s legal division, a mandatory notice under Section 79A invoked to initiate redevelopment of unsafe and ageing buildings was never withdrawn by the competent office. This finding contradicts earlier statements presented in court, where a panel lawyer reportedly conveyed that the notice had been revoked following the landlord’s compliance with procedural requirements. The court subsequently disposed of the matter based on that submission.Officials familiar with the review said the legal team found no documentation supporting the claim that the notice was cancelled. They added that records within the engineering division, which oversees structural and technical procedures for cessed buildings, also confirmed no such revocation. “The communication presented before the court did not originate from the designated officer,” a senior official said, noting that the internal report recommends removing the advocate from the authority’s panel.

The matter came to light after a tenant-representative sought information under the Right to Information Act, revealing discrepancies between official records and court submissions. In his complaint, he alleged misrepresentation that delayed a redevelopment process already strained by structural deterioration and administrative inertia an issue common across Mumbai’s older neighbourhoods where thousands of residents remain in vulnerable buildings awaiting renewal.While the panel lawyer argued that the submission stemmed from a miscommunication with an engineering officer, the review concluded otherwise. However, housing rights observers say the administrative response focuses solely on individual accountability rather than the systemic gaps that continue to hold up redevelopment of dangerous structures. “Tenants still lack clarity on when their building’s renewal will be reinstated,” said an urban policy researcher, pointing out that delays in such cases often push low-income households deeper into insecurity, sometimes forcing them into unsafe accommodations or prolonged relocation.The episode also highlights the fragile coordination between legal, engineering, and administrative units within government agencies, particularly in matters affecting housing safety and citizen welfare.

Experts note that transparent redevelopment pathways are essential for dense, ageing urban areas such as Girgaum, where neglected buildings increase risks for both residents and neighbouring properties.As the state pursues safer, more inclusive and climate-resilient redevelopment models, stakeholders argue that procedural integrity and timely intervention must remain central. For tenants of the Girgaum property, the next steps hinge on whether the authority moves decisively to restore the redevelopment process that Section 79A was meant to safeguard.

Mumbai Report Flags Lawyer Misleading Court Over Girgaum Redevelopment Notice Revocation Claim