1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.821 OF 2009 Khorakiwala Foundation & Anr. ...Petitioners. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Kevic Setalwad i/by Harish Joshi & Co. adv. For the Petitioners. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, GP with Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, AGP, For the Respondents. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 20th January , 2010. P.C. 1 Petitioners are registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. They applied to the Government for allotment of land. Initially, the Government on 10th April, 1991 allotted two plots admeasuring 3500 and 3428 sq.mtrs. which were reserved for hospital and maternity home in respect of land bearing survey no.161 at Versova on nominal reserve/rent of Re.1/- per year for the period of thirty years. It appears that thereafter while taking actual measurement, it was found that there was additional area of 1088 sq.mtrs. This was again allotted to the petitioners by an order dated 20.12.1993. While allotting the land, it was made clear that it was being allotted on the terms and conditions set 2 out in the Government Memorandum dated 10.4.1991 and by fixing the provisional value of the land at the rate of Rs.1950/- per sq.mtr. as per the prevailing market rate and by charging lease rent at the rate of 15% p.a. on 50% amount of the total value calculated as per the said market rate as per the Government policy dated 20.7.92 as referred to in the said order. Possession receipt was thereafter executed on 31.5.1994. Petitioners thereafter have been corresponding with the State contending that they should not be charged at the rate set out earlier and on failure by the respondent/State to grant relief, the present petition. 2 On behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel submits that the plot was one and in these circumstances, respondent/State could not have charged amount as now being claimed and there is no such provision for charging so. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that considering the provisions of Section 262(E) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for the same plot, two rates cannot be charged. Considering the language of Section 262, in our opinion, the same does not pertain to licence/lease fee. That pertains to land revenue. Consequently, in our opinion, reliance placed on Section 262(E) is misplaced. Apart from that petitioners himself have given Undertaking dated 25th February, 1994 agreeing to the terms and conditions of the 3 allotment. 3 In the instant case, petitioners have taken possession of the land. Allotment is clear that the said allotment is subject to those terms and conditions. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State by Narhari Bhiva Bhatkar , same is set out in paragraph 2. 4 Once the petitioners have accepted the additional land and taken possession thereof, in our opinion, it will not be open to the petitioners to move this Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction challenging the terms of the said allotment and that too after a period of 15 years. It was open for the petitioners if the respondents were not agreeing not to accept or to surrender the plot. In our opinion, in these circumstances, no case is made out to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)