HC issues contempt notices against collector, tehsildar

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has issued contempt notices against the Mumbai suburban collector and Borivli tehsildar for not obeying its earlier orders of executing recovery warrants against promoters of Gaurav Discovery project in Malad west if no settlement takes place between the developer and six homebuyers.

A high court bench comprising justice RD Dhanuka and justice SG Dige had directed that notices be issued against the suburban collector Nidhi Chaudhari and Borivli tehsildar Vinod Dhotre as to why action should not be initiated against them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

“In our prima facie view, the respondent no 2 (collector) and 3 (tahsildar) have not complied with the order passed by this court willfully,” the high court observed in its order dated November 30 uploaded on Tuesday on its website.

The court, however, said it was granting an opportunity to both the authorities to execute the recovery warrant against Jayesh and Ketan Tokersi Shah, promoters and partners in Vidhi Realtors, and Vijaykamal Properties and submit a report before the court on or before the next hearing on December 16.

The high court had on April 27, 2022 directed the collector and the tehsildar that if no settlement for refund amounts was reached between the developer and the homebuyers till June 2022, as Revenue Authority, they should execute the recovery warrants under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC) by attaching and selling the property.

“There shall be no laxity on the part of the Authority in executing the said recovery certificates in terms of the orders issued by the Member, MahaRERA,” the court had said. When the warrants were not issued within the time period granted by the court, six homebuyers of the Gaurav Discovery project had filed a contempt petition.

The homebuyers had booked flats in Gaurav Discovery project and were promised possession by the developer by December 2017, but did not comply with it. The buyers had then filed complaints with MAHARERA. During the November 30 hearing, the advocates for the petitioners Manish Gala, Nilesh Gala and Minil Shah of Law Square submitted that despite April 27 orders by the court, the promoters and their companies had not paid any amount nor even agreed to settle the dispute amicably. They drew the attention of the court to an email by the advocate for the developer stating that he had not received any instructions to make any payment. The court observed that the email clearly indicated that the developers and their firms were willfully disobeying the court’s orders, and no settlement had reached within the prescribed two months.

The petition also pointed out that the promoters were making substantial payments to the municipal corporation for premium and other charges and had sufficient financial resources, but they were paying the outstanding dues of the buyers.

In our prima facie view, the collector, tehsildar have not complied with the order passed by this court willfully HIGH COURT