1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 422 OF 2008 (Shivmangal Khushalprasad Dubey .v. Nagpur Improvement Trust) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 19TH AUGUST, 2008 Heard Shri S.S. Voditel, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.O. Chhabra, the learned Counsel for the respondent. In the instant case, the following facts are not in dispute. The petitioner vide communication dated 06.09.2006 (RP-96), requested the Recovery Officer, Nagpur Improvement Trust to grant permanent lease (30 years) in respect of plot No.106, possession of which is already with the petitioner, on the basis of the premium to be fixed by the Rate Fixation Committee. In the petition, vide another communication dated 23.04.2007, the petitioner sent the reminder in this regard to the Recovery Officer, Nagpur Improvement Trust (RP-97) and the Nagpur Improvement Trust, therefore, referred the matter to the Rate Fixation Committee for fixing the premium. 2 The Rate Fixation Committee fixed the rate i.e. Rs.14,700/- per square meter and, therefore, the Executive Officer, Nagpur Improvement Trust issued the impugned demand order/notice dated 17.09.2007 whereby the petitioner was informed about the said rate and was also directed to deposit Rs.24,58,134/-. The said communication also contains certain other conditions which the petitioner was required to fulfill. The demand notice dated 17.09.2007 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the year 1999, the Nagpur Improvement Trust has made a demand whereby the petitioner was informed that the rate of the land in question which was determined by the then Rate Fixation Committee came to Rs.6,110/- per square meter and, therefore, the demand notice was issued accordingly by the Nagpur Improvement Trust to the petitioner in the year 1999. The petitioner challenged the said demand notice before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3796 of 1999 and this Court dismissed the same vide order dated 03.07.2001 (RP-91). The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the Nagpur Improvement, after dismissal of the above referred petition, ought to have executed the permanent lease (30 years) in favour 3 of the petitioner on the basis of the rate i.e. Rs.6,110/- per square meter. However, failure on the part of the Nagpur Improvement Trust to do so till this date, the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault and, therefore, a fresh demand made by the Nagpur Improvement Trust at the rate of Rs.14,700/-, in the backdrop of the circumstances, cannot be sustained in law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs.24,58,134/- as demanded by the Nagpur Improvement Trust vide impugned demand notice without prejudice to his rights. The learned Counsel for the respondent seeks permission to withdraw the same with the understanding that if the petition succeeds and if this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get the document of permanent lease executed at the rate of Rs.6,110/- per square meter, whatever will be the difference, the Nagpur Improvement Trust shall pay the difference to the petitioner. Insofar as the interest part is concerned, appropriate order in this regard will be passed by this Court at the appropriate stage. The learned Counsel for the Nagpur Improvement Trust states that if the petitioner makes a 4 fresh application for execution of permanent lease (30 years) in his favour, without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the petition, the same would be considered on its own merit. Permission to withdraw the amount of Rs.24,58,134/- is granted to the Nagpur Improvement Trust. With these observations, Civil application stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.