Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday paved the way for the cluster redevelopment of two of the city’s largest Mhada layouts, at Bandra Reclamation and Adarsh Nagar in Worli, rejecting a bunch of petitions by housing societies and other stakeholders seeking to redevelop their properties independently.The judgment dealt with challenges to Mhada’s proposed redevelopment of approximately 34.33 acres of land at Adarsh Nagar (in pic) and 98.27 acres at Bandra Reclamation. (Hindustan Times)A division bench of justices MS Karnik and SM Modak held that the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority’s cluster redevelopment policy was a valid planning measure serving the larger public interest. As the planning authority and superior lessor, Mhada is empowered to regulate redevelopment under the statutory framework, the bench said.Holding that courts should not interfere with policy decisions concerning planned urban development and civic infrastructure unless they are shown to be illegal or arbitrary, the bench dismissed all 10 writ petitions without costs.The judgment dealt with challenges to Mhada’s proposed redevelopment of approximately 34.33 acres of land at Adarsh Nagar and 98.27 acres at Bandra Reclamation. Both layouts comprise several decades-old buildings built for people from middle- and lower-income groups. These colonies have around 5,000 housing societies, some of whose structures have become dilapidated.However, the petitioners had claimed that they possessed independent rights under their leases or sub-leases to redevelop their societies and appoint developers of their choice. They challenged two Maharashtra government orders from April and December 2025 that framed a policy to undertake cluster redevelopment of Mhada layouts of 20 acres or more, a redevelopment tender issued in April 2026, and provisions of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034, arguing that the scheme infringed their property and constitutional rights.Rejecting these arguments, the court said that the petitioners “cannot seek to override public planning policy by claiming unilateral redevelopment rights”. Mhada, being the planning authority and the superior lessor for these layouts, retains the authority to regulate redevelopment in accordance with applicable laws and policies, it added.Recording Mhada’s submission, the judgment noted that allowing individual housing societies in the Adarsh Nagar and Bandra Reclamation layouts to independently redevelop isolated buildings through private developers would defeat the larger policy framework. The state’s decision to pursue integrated redevelopment was neither irrational nor arbitrary, it said.“The petitioner societies may be of the opinion that the existing infrastructure is adequate, but in matters of planning, such matters are best left to the wisdom of the state, which is well advised by the experts in matters of planning,” the bench said. It added that integrated redevelopment would ensure uniformity, accountability, quality control and long-term infrastructure sustainability that piecemeal redevelopment could not.The court also rejected the petitioners’ argument that Mhada was effectively monetising the project by accepting a floor space index (FSI) premium instead of additional affordable housing stock. Holding that the construction and development agency functioned under Mhada’s control and that the authority was entitled under the regulations to receive premiums in lieu of housing stock, the judgment recorded expected premiums of about ₹1,522 crore for Adarsh Nagar and about ₹3,900 crore for Bandra Reclamation.The judges also rejected the petitioners’ argument that the redevelopment prejudiced occupants, noting that Mhada’s framework would provide enhanced rehabilitation and safeguard residents’ interests.“We have already set out the comparative rehabilitation entitlement demonstrating the benefits to the occupants... the rights of the occupants are safeguarded, and no irreparable prejudice whatsoever is caused to the petitioners,” the bench said, adding that any interference with the redevelopment would adversely affect the larger body of residents covered by the project.Emphasising that public interest outweighed the objections raised by a limited number of societies, the bench said, “In advancing public welfare, there may be situations where certain individual rights are necessarily restricted or curtailed. However, such consequences, by themselves, do not and cannot constitute valid grounds to restrain the state from taking action in furtherance of public interest.”