1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6667 OF 2007 Shri Ratnakar Baburao Thakur and Ors. ....Petitioners. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. ----- Mr. R.V. Govilkar i/b Mr. V.M. Parkar for the Petitioners. Mr. A.H. Palekar, AGP for Respondents - State. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 15 th January, 2008. P.C.: 1. The land of the petitioners was exempted from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 subject to the terms and conditions that were mentioned in the letter dated 4.10.1995. The petitioners, it appears, were under an obligation to start the work of construction within a period of one year from the sanction of the scheme and were to complete it within a period of three years. Thus, the construction was to be completed by 03/10/1998. It appears that the Petitioners did not complete the construction. Therefore, an order was made dated 13/6/2005, cancelling the permission. That order was challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate authority set aside the order cancelling the permission, 2 subject to the Petitioners securing extension of time from the State Government. The Petitioners, accordingly, approached the State Government for extension of time. By letter dated 17/01/2007, the State Government informed the Petitioners that the State Government has decided to grant one year’s extension for completing the construction subject to payment of fine @ Rs 5/- per sq.ft. Thereafter, the State Government issued the next letter dated 29/03/2007 calculating the amount of fine of Rs 23,79,588/- . The Petitioners neither paid the fine nor did they start the work to take benefit of the extension. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that there is no authority in the State Government to impose fine as condition for grant of extension of time. 3. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. The State Government has power under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to fix time within which the scheme is to be completed. The completion of the scheme within the time fixed, is condition for granting exemption. Therefore, power of the State Government to impose condition is relatable to the power of the State Government to grant exemption. If the Petitioners get exemption subject to certain terms and conditions and one of the terms is completion of the scheme within specified time and if the State Government finds that the petitioners delayed the 3 completion of the scheme, the State Government, in our opinion, would be entitled to impose costs or fine as condition for grant of extension of time. Though it was argued before us that the State Government was not justified in granting one year’s extension, we do not find any prayer in the Petition, asking for direction to the State Government to grant longer time. In our opinion, really speaking, if, according to the Petitioners, grant of one year’s extension was not enough, it was for them to approach the State Government first, seeking longer time. The Petitioners have neither approached the State Government, seeking longer time nor have they prayed that relief in this Petition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners then submitted that by the order dated 29/03/2007, the Petitioners have been given one year’s time to start the work and three years’ time to complete the work and, therefore, the period of extension is not over. 5. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. The period for which the extension is granted is clearly mentioned in the order dated 29/03/2007. The purport and import of the letter dated 29/3/2007 is only calculating the amount of fine. The order granting extension is dated 17/01/2007 and that order makes it clear that the extension of time for completing the scheme is of one year only and, therefore, it was for the Petitioners, if they wanted to take advantage of the extension, to start the work immediately 4 and to complete it within one year from 17/01/2007. Now the situation is that neither the Petitioners have paid the fine nor have they taken advantage of the extension order. With the result, their Petition in relation to the extension of time granted by the State Government has become infructuous because they have not taken advantage of the extension of time granted by the State Government. The State Government was demanding only money and, therefore, it was possible for the Petitioners to deposit the money with the State Government under protest and challenge that action in Court. The petitioners have chosen not to do it. The Petitioners have even not chosen to seek extension for longer time. It appears that the entire attempt of the Petitioners is misdirected and misconceived. 6. Petition is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 5