MUMBAI, July 29 -- Calling it a "colossal misuse" of authority, the Bombay high court on Monday appointed a two-member committee to investigate a "racket" involving engineers from the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) illegally issuing 935 redevelopment notices to old buildings in prime locations in the city. A division bench of justice GS Kulkarni and justice Arif Doctor ruled that Mhada's executive engineers had issued these notices without jurisdiction as they had vested interests in the properties, which are located in upmarket areas in south Mumbai, such as Banganga Road, Walkeshwar, Gamdevi Road, and Nepean Sea Road. The inquiry will be conducted by a two-member committee headed by justice (retired) JP Deodhar, a former judge of the Bombay high court, and retired principal district judge Vilas D Dongre. The committee has been asked to submit its inquiry report within six months. The court issued the orders after hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the redevelopment notices issued by Mhada to hundreds of cessed buildings that it had deemed dangerous and dilapidated. The petitions claimed that executive engineers from the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), a statutory unit of Mhada, had issued the notices without jurisdiction and based on only a "visual inspection," without conducting a structural audit of the buildings. The entire controversy revolves around section 79-A of the Mhada Act, which allows Mhada to initiate the redevelopment of dangerously dilapidated cessed buildings if neither the owner nor the tenants take the necessary steps within a specified timeframe. Earlier this month, the court had observed that an executive engineer in Mhada had no jurisdiction to issue the redevelopment notices, adding that their action appeared to be high-handed. Calling the matter serious, the court held that the notices were issued to give an undue advantage to certain people, while curtailing the rights of the owners and tenants of the cessed buildings. "This would amount to a brazen misuse of the powers and authority vested with the concerned officers of Mhada at whichever level, we do not know", the bench said. Citing a 2024 judgement, the bench stated that section 79-A of the Mhada Act can be invoked only if a building is first declared dangerous by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation or a competent authority. It had held that executive engineers have no independent power to issue such notices. Advocates NV Walawalkar, GS Godbole and Surel Shah, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that Mhada had not vested any jurisdiction whatsoever in the officers who issued such notices. Even assuming the appropriate authority was involved, under Section 79-A, the notices could not have been issued based on just a "visual inspection" of the buildings concerned, the petitioners argued. On the other hand, senior counsel PG Lad, representing Mhada, referred to provisions of the Mhada Act which showed that it was "the primary responsibility of the board to repair the cessed buildings." Considering the large number of prime properties being adversely affected, the bench stated that the matter has "gathered the colour of a racket/scam" by misusing the provisions of law. It noted that the redevelopment of the properties had been ordered at the behest of "unscrupulous persons with vested interests" who intend to take advantage of the fact that the buildings are old. The consequences of issuing such notices without the jurisdictional requirements are "horrendous to say the least," the bench said. Noting that the redevelopment of cessed properties involves floor space index incentives, which is "a bonanza for commercial exploitation," the court stated that the vested interests in these properties can be worth a fortune. "The statutory machinery being misused for such ulterior motives and for windfall of benefits is a matter of serious concern. It is beyond one's imagination as to how, in such large numbers, the impugned notices under Section 79-A could at all be issued," the court said. Expressing concerns over the board's actions, the court said the case involved "an extreme, unfortunate and blatant abuse of the powers by these officers"....