The MHADA Oshiwara Royal Sand redevelopment dispute has intensified after residents submitted complaints alleging procedural irregularities in redevelopment activities at the Jogeshwari West housing society. Representations claim that demolition and eviction-related actions were initiated without completing registered Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA) for affected occupants. Residents have also raised concerns regarding the implementation of Section 95A proceedings, alleged continuation of demolition activities despite assurances, and reductions in rehabilitation carpet area under a supplementary development agreement. The allegations involve redevelopment stakeholders and officials and remain subject to verification, official inquiry, and legal determination.

MHADA Oshiwara Royal Sand CHSL Redevelopment Dispute: Residents Allege Irregularities in Section 95A Proceedings and PAAA Compliance

Residents of Oshiwara Royal Sand Cooperative Housing Society Limited (CHSL) in Mumbai have raised serious concerns regarding redevelopment proceedings, alleging misuse of MHADA Act Section 95A, non-execution of Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA), unauthorised demolitions, and procedural irregularities.

The redevelopment dispute involving Oshiwara Royal Sand Cooperative Housing Society Limited (CHSL), situated at Adarsh Nagar, New Link Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, has escalated after residents submitted complaints alleging irregularities in the implementation of redevelopment-related actions.

According to representations submitted before various authorities, residents have alleged that redevelopment activities were undertaken without completing registered Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA), which they claim should have been executed before demolition and eviction proceedings commenced.

The dispute concerns properties situated on City Survey Nos. 1(part), 31(part), 33, 34(part), 35(part), 36(part), and 39(part) at Oshiwara village, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. Residents maintain that they are not opposed to redevelopment but seek protection of their legal and rehabilitation rights.

Documents reviewed by Sprouts News indicate that concerns have been raised regarding redevelopment actions undertaken by Lotus Developers, the role of certain society office-bearers, and the implementation of proceedings under Section 95A of the MHADA Act.

Meeting With MHADA Chief Officer Milind Borikar and Subsequent Developments

According to representations submitted by social activist Javed Ahmad Khan, a meeting was held on May 19, 2026, with Milind Borikar, Chief Officer of the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board (MHADA Mumbai Board).

The representation states that Javed Ahmad Khan, along with residents of Oshiwara Royal Sand CHSL, explained their concerns regarding redevelopment proceedings, demolition activities, and the absence of registered PAAA agreements for affected occupants.

According to the complaint, Milind Borikar allegedly contacted the Chief Engineer and directed that notices issued under Section 95A be withdrawn and that no coercive action be taken until registered Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements were executed.

However, residents have alleged that despite those instructions, demolition activity continued on May 21, 2026. The complaint claims that a Sub-Engineer allegedly acted on behalf of the developer and proceeded with demolition and eviction activities. These allegations have not been independently verified and remain subject to official examination.

The representations seek an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding those events and request scrutiny of the actions taken by concerned officials and stakeholders.

Allegations Concerning Development Agreements and Carpet Area Reduction

Residents have also raised concerns regarding redevelopment agreements executed over the years. According to complaints, an original Development Agreement (DA) executed around 2011 allegedly provided approximately 1,450 square feet of carpet area to eligible occupants.

However, residents allege that a Supplementary Development Agreement (SDA) executed during 2021–2022 reduced the proposed carpet area entitlement to approximately 801 square feet. Residents claim they were misled regarding the implications of signing the SDA.

The representations allege that certain office-bearers of Oshiwara Royal Sand CHSL, acting in conjunction with Lotus Developers, obtained consent signatures from residents without fully explaining the consequences of the revised agreement.

Residents further claim they were informed that refusal to sign the SDA could result in substantially lower rehabilitation benefits. These allegations remain disputed and have not been adjudicated by any court.

Complaints estimate that the reduction in residential and commercial rehabilitation area may have resulted in significant financial implications. Residents have requested an investigation into those calculations as well as scrutiny of transferable Floor Space Index (FSI) allocations connected to the project.

Also Read: FirstCry Ordered to Pay Compensation in Consumer Dispute.

Related News: MHADA–Rustamjee Redevelopment Allegations Spark Questions.

Names, Authorities and Key Stakeholders Referenced in Complaints

The complaints and representations reference several individuals, authorities, and entities connected with the redevelopment dispute. These include Milind Borikar, Chief Officer of the MHADA Mumbai Board; Nilesh Madane, Executive Engineer, MHADA; and Assistant Engineer Piyush Kamble.

The representations also refer to Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, complainant Javed Ahmad Khan, resident Asha A. Singh, developer representative Jayant Agrawal, advocate Sunil Bhalia, political leader Sanjay Pandey, and political functionary Syed Khan.

Other entities named in the dispute include Lotus Developers, Oshiwara Royal Sand Cooperative Housing Society Limited (CHSL), the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board (MHADA), and officials associated with redevelopment approvals and implementation.

Residents have sought suspension of redevelopment permissions and a stay on further Section 95A proceedings until all registered Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements are completed. They have also demanded an inquiry into the role of society office-bearers and requested fresh society elections.

What Happens Next?

The allegations concerning PAAA execution, redevelopment permissions, Section 95A notices, demolition activities, rehabilitation entitlements, FSI calculations, and conduct of stakeholders remain matters raised in complaints and representations before authorities.

Residents have requested registration of FIRs, investigation into alleged irregularities, and examination of actions attributed to the developer, society office-bearers, and concerned officials. No judicial or administrative authority has yet issued a final determination on these allegations.

Any finding regarding responsibility, misconduct, procedural lapses, or financial implications will ultimately depend upon investigations, administrative scrutiny, and decisions by competent authorities or courts.

Readers’ Appeal

If you possess documents, redevelopment records, MHADA correspondence, society resolutions, PAAA agreements, rehabilitation records, or information concerning redevelopment projects affecting residents in Mumbai, you may contact Sprouts News.

Investigative journalist Unmesh Gujarathi and the Sprouts News Special Investigation Team continue reporting on housing, redevelopment, governance, public accountability, and citizen rights. Information may be shared confidentially at 9322755098.

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.