hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 991 OF 2009 Om Wishwashanti Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus S.R.A. And Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.V. Govilkar alongwith Mr. Rahul Tiwari i/by M/s. K.R. Tiwari & Co. for Petitoner. Mr. M.U. Pandey for R. No. 6. Mr. J.G. Reddy for R. No. 1. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2010 P.C. The Petitioner society had forwarded a proposal to Respondent No. 1 for carrying out development in the plot identified in Survey No. 558B through their Architects by their application dated 17.8.1998. On 4.9.1998 that application was considered and as no further steps had been taken S.R.A. decided to record the proposals. On 28.9.1998 the Architect M/s. R.W. Gudal and Associates were informed. A reminder was again sent to M/s. R.W. Gudal and Associates on 5.6.1999. On 14.6.1999 M/s. R.G. Gudal and Associates requested the S.R.A. to grant permission to repair the existing structures in plots bearing C.T.S. No. 558/B and 558-B1 to 40 at village Malad (East). On 18.6.1999 according to Authority S.R.A. they informed the Petitioner’s Architect that since the scheme submitted by the Petitioners has already been recorded, there is no question of granting any permission and the same cannot be reopened. It appears that thereafter Respondent No. 6 applied for annexure II which was granted. A letter of intent was issued to R. No. 6 on 1.8.2000. The scheme which was submitted was sanctioned by the authority on 19.7.2000. The Petitioner herein had earlier filed a Petition before this court being W.P. No. 46 of 2000. The learned Bench of this Court by its order dated 1.4.2002 was pleased to issue rule. The present Respondent No. 6 were parties in the said Petition as Respondent No. 5. It appears that the major contention raised in that petition by the Petitioners was that C.T.S. No. 558/B and 558B-1 to 40 was owned by the B.M.C. and the Competent authority in the said matter to issue annexure II is Additional Collector (Encroachment). The order reflects that the said authority had issued annexure II in favour of the present Respondent No. 6. This court further directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land bearing C.T.S. No. 558/B and 558-B 1 to 40. An opportunity was however, given to Respondent No. 5 to develop the land owned by B.M.C. According to law. Petition came up for hearing on 8.2.2008 when it was disposed of. The court recorded that considering the prayers in that petition, the high power committee to decide the controversy. The Petitioners accordingly made representation to the High Power committee. The Committee passed an order dated 21.3.2009 after considering the facts on record and noted that the appellant had earlier submitted S.R.D. Scheme and the same was recorded for want of compliance. The present petition by the Petitioners seek to challenge the said scheme on various grounds as also the order dated 21.3.2009. The question before us is whether we could in these circumstances entertain the present writ petition. On behalf of the Petitioner the learned counsel stated that the scheme could not have been sanctioned as the land belongs to the Corporation and apart from that there are various violations of statutory provisions. It is also sought to be pointed out that filing of the Petitioner’s application was not communicated to the Architect and in these circumstances, the Petitioners were not aware of the same. Respondent No. 6, the present developer has filed an affidavit on 19.8.2009 with which he has annexed the copy of the reply filed by the S.R.A. in Writ Petition No. 46 of 2002. That affidavit was affirmed on 4.2.2002. That affidavit contains various annexures which will also show the correspondence exchanged by the S.R.A. with the Architects of the Petitioners as also the letter dated 1.8.2000. which shows that the scheme submitted by Respondent No. 6 has been approved. In our opinion, once the Petitioners were aware that the scheme has been sanctioned, the Petitioners were bound in law to challenge the sanction of scheme in favour of Respondent No. 6. Merely contending that issue was before the high power committee in our opinion is no answer. In the earlier Writ Petition No. 46 of 2000, the petitioners had not challenged the sanctioning of the scheme in favour of the Respondent No. 6, though the reply filed by S.R.A. Clearly disclosed that fact. Even if we accept the contention on behalf of the Petitioners that their Architects were not intimated about the filing of application, at least in the year 2002 they became aware of the same. Inspite of that no steps were taken to challenge the scheme sanctioned in favour of Respondent No. 6. The issue as to whether the S.R.A. could have been sanctioned in respect of the land belonging to the Corporation need not be gone into. It is for the Corporation to take such steps in law to which they are entitled to protect their interest. Disposal of the Petition will not stand in the way of the Corporation protecting ts legitimate rights. Considering the above, in our opinion, the challenge to the scheme in favour of Respondent No. 6 is belated and hit by laches. In the light of that, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence,. Petition rejected. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)