In a significant judgment upholding property rights, the Bombay High Court has ruled that authorities cannot “belatedly” insist on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from defence establishments once construction has substantially progressed under validly sanctioned plans. The court directed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to issue an occupancy certificate to a residential project near INS Trata, labeling the sudden requirement of a naval NOC as “arbitrary and illegal.”
The core legal dispute centered on whether planning authorities and naval establishments could halt a nearly completed construction project by retroactively demanding a security NOC, despite having granted multiple commencement certificates over several years. The court examined the balance between national security concerns and the constitutional right to property under Article 300A.
The petition was filed by Techno Freshworld LLP, the developers of the Prabhadevi Indraprastha Cooperative Housing Society located in Worli, central Mumbai. The project consists of two residential buildings, one of which was intended to rehouse 72 original tenants.
From the project’s inception, MHADA—the state-run planning authority—had consistently issued and renewed Commencement Certificates (CC), allowing the developer to proceed. However, in October 2025, when the first building was complete and the second was nearing completion, MHADA issued a “stop work” notice and refused to grant an Occupancy Certificate (OC). The refusal was based on the grounds that the developer had not obtained a mandatory NOC from the naval authorities due to the project’s proximity to the naval installation, INS Trata.
The Petitioner (Techno Freshworld LLP) argued that they had acted strictly in accordance with sanctioned plans and permissions granted by the planning authority. They highlighted that MHADA had permitted the entire construction to reach its final stages without once raising the requirement for a naval NOC.
The Respondents (MHADA and Defence Authorities) contended that the proximity to INS Trata posed potential security risks and threat perceptions. They maintained that the NOC was a mandatory requirement for structures in the vicinity of such sensitive military installations to ensure the safety and integrity of the base.
A division bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe scrutinized the timing and selective nature of the authorities’ demands. The bench observed that if there were genuine security concerns, they should have been addressed before the first brick was laid.
“If the defence’s argument regarding security concerns and threat perception in reality has any basis, all steps, which the law would warrant, are required to be taken at the very beginning of any construction activity,” the bench noted.
The court criticized the “casual approach” taken by the authorities in this instance, emphasizing that the construction had reached its “fag end” based on legal permissions. The judges further noted that several other buildings already exist near INS Trata, some of which were built without such NOCs.
“We are of the opinion that the requirement of an NOC cannot be selectively insisted/foisted by the naval authorities,” the court remarked, adding that the insistence of such a certificate must be “non-arbitrary, fair, and reasonable.”
Furthermore, the court invoked Article 300A of the Constitution, stating that the right to property cannot be infringed upon in a manner not recognized by law. The bench found that the petitioner’s buildings were situated beyond the prescribed norms that would necessitate a mandatory NOC, making the naval intervention “illegal, invalid and unjustified.”
The High Court quashed the October 2025 stop-work notice and set aside MHADA’s communication rejecting the Occupancy Certificate. The court held that the grant of commencement certificates by MHADA was legal and valid, whereas the subsequent refusal of an OC based on the lack of a naval NOC was arbitrary.
The authorities were directed to proceed with the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate for the two buildings, ensuring that the rights of the developer and the 72 original tenants are protected.
