:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1007 OF 2008 M/s.Buildarch & Anr. .. Petitioners. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.P.Kadam i/b Kadam & Co. for the petitioners. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, senior counsel a/w Ms.P.A.Purandare for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.Babasaheb Pawar - Asst.Commissioner, Estates present. Mr.J.G.Reddy for respondent no.4. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : 16TH MAY, 2008. DATED : 16TH MAY, 2008. DATED : 16TH MAY, 2008. (Vacation Court) (Vacation Court) (Vacation Court) P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is seized and possessed of land situate at S.S.Amrutwar Marg, Lower Parel Division, Worli, Mumbai, admeasuring about 3225.80 sq. mtrs. There were about 164 structures situate on the said property including structures under Vacant Land Tenure. The occupiers of the structures proposed a Co-operative Housing Society from whom the petitioners claim to have acquired the right to develop the land under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in April, 2004. The 1st respondent issued a list of eligible occupiers in the form of Annexure-II on 22nd :2: :2: :2: September, 2005. A Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the petitioners by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority - the 4th respondent on 30th December, 2005. The petitioners completed construction of the rehabilitation building and it has been stated that an application for grant of occupation certificate is still to be submitted. The area of the plot as noted above is 3225.80 sq. mtrs.; of this 1498 sq. mtrs. was held on Vacant Land Tenure, while the rest, the Court is informed has been declared as a slum. The petitioners proposed to develop the entire area under a slum rehabilitation scheme with reference to Development Control Regulation 33(10). The petitioners have furnished an undertaknig to the Municipal Corporation stating that they are liable to pay the premium/capitalized costs as consideration for being allowed to develop the property. The petitioners agreed and undertook to pay premium/capitalized cost as demanded and worked out after issuance of the letter of intent by the rehabilitation authority. This undertaking was submitted on 3rd September, 2005. It would appear from the record of this proceeding that on 12th August, 2005 the Asst. Commissioners, Estates, Municipal Corporation, has worked out the premium/capitalized cost at Rs.42,25,000/- as payable by the petitioners, though the policy in that regard :3: :3: :3: was still to be approved. 2. At this stage the petitioners have challenged the authority of the 1st respondent to levy demand and collect the premium/capitalized cost. The petitioners interalia seek an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner, Estates proposing to levy Rs.42.25 lakhs as and by way of capitalized costs. On behalf of the Municipal Corporation it has been submitted that the petitioners have already taken the benefit of having been allowed to develop the entire plot of land under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under Development Control Regulation 33(10) and but for the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation, it has been urged, the petitioners would not have been able to develop the land on which a declaration of slum has not been issued and which has been held as vacant land tenure. The corporation is the owner of the land and permitted the petitioners to do so subject to payment of premium/capitalized cost since eventually the land would have to be conveyed on lease to a co-operative society/societies formed by the flat purchasers. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has placed on record a :4: :4: :4: communication dated 13th May, 2008 which notes that the petitioners are required to comply with several requisitions among them being clearance of the dues of the municipal corporation towards capitalisation cost in terms of the undertaking given by the builder at the time of obtaining Annexure-II. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners stated before the court that in terms of the undertaking submitted to the municipal corporation and the decision of municipal corporation dated 12th August, 2005 the petitioners would pay an amount of Rs.42.25 lakhs within a period of six weeks from today. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the municipal corporation has stated on instructions that the corporation shall issue a final NOC for the project in accordance with law immediately upon deposit of the aforesaid amount. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the petitioners accept this as a full and final determination of their liability and the challenged is not pressed. The petition is accordingly disposed of, since no other point is pressed. (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) :5: :5: :5: (K.U.Chandiwal, J.)