Case: Mafatlal Industries Limited & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Ministries Revenue & Forest & Urban Development & Others

Oral Judgment:(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.2. It is agreed that majority of the prayers in the writ petition stand answered in terms of the Judgment of this Court in O.S. Writ Petition (L) No.122 of 2018 with Notice of Motion No.45 of 2018 (Hindustan Unilever Limited & Another v/s. State of Maharashtra & Others), decided on 3-5-2018. The surviving issue then remains about the interpretation of Government of Maharashtra Notification dated 10-2-2004, copy of which is at ExhibitG to the petition, at page 120 thereof. It is that issue which will be dealt with by this Judgment.3. The prayers in relation thereto, as amended, read as under:(b-iii) order and direct Respondent Nos.2 and 5 to act in accordance with the Notification dated 10th February 2004 (Exhibit G hereto); act in accordance with the statements made before this Honble Court in PIL Writ Petition No.660 of 2004; and in view thereof, grant the Petitioners noncash compensation (in terms of Development Rights Certificate) in accordance with the Petitioners entitlement under the Notification dated 10th February 2004 and the Development Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai (as amended);c (i) to (iv) . . .(v) stay the effect, implementation and operation of the impugned Panchnama and the impugned receipt dated 7th January 2017/7th January, 2016 (being Exhibits EE and JJ hereto);(vi) restrain and prohibit Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent No.5, their respective servants, officers and/or agents from in any manner (directly and/or indirectly) acting upon in furtherance and/or otherwise taking any action upon and in relation to the impugned Panchnama and the impugned receipt dated 7th January 2017/7th January 2016 (being Exhibits EE and JJ hereto);(vii) restrain and prohibit Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent No.5 from in any manner (directly or indirectly) disturbing and/or interfering with the Petitioners possession of the MCGM land (Petition: Exhibit F);AUGUST 16, 2018 4. For appreciating the issue in relation to these prayers, we would have to refer to certain background facts.5. The list of dates, as tendered by Mr. Khambata, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, refers to two Indentures of Lease under which the State granted the lease of the lands.6. Under the Indentures of Lease dated 14-5-1921 (Exhibit-B, page 85) and 13-10-1923 (Exhibit-C, page 98), the State Government granted lease of lands aggregating to 70,361.20 square metres to petitioner No.1/Mafatlals predecessors for an initial period of 99 years with an entitlement to a new lease for a further term of 99 years with the same covenant and provision (including the covenant for renewal). These are, therefore, perpetual leases.7. In the year 1967, under the then Development Plan, 58,197.97 square metres of land was reserved for the purpose of extension to Veermata Jijabai Bhosale Udyan & Zoo (VJB Udyan for short).8. By its Notification dated 10-2-2004 (ExhibitG, page 120) (2004 Notification for short), the Urban Development Department of the State of Maharashtra inter alia released 50% of the land from reservation and making it available to Mafatlal for development under D.C. Regulation 58. This land admeasures 30,910.15 square metres and is the subject land (Exhibit-E, page 117). As regards the balance land, it continued under reservation (for extension of the Zoo) and under the 2004 Notification Mafatlal is to surrender the same to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM for short). This land is the MCGM land (ExhibitF, page 118).9. In March, 2004, Janhit Manch & others filed PIL Writ Petition No.660 of 2004 inter alia challenging the 2004 Notification and the release of the subject land from reservation and the same becoming available to Mafatlal for development.10. On 15-6-2004, Mafatlal made an application under Section 302 of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (BMC Act for short) and under Section 44 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act for short) to the MCGM seeking permission for carrying out development of the property bearing C.S. No.593 of Mazgaon Division by proposing subdivision/ amalgamation of property and layout of Building.11. Thereafter, the petitioners also submitted an application for surrender of the reserved land for grant of Development Rights Certificate (DRC) under Regulation 34 of the Development Control Regulations For Greater Mumbai, 1991 (DCR, 1991 for short) r/w Appendix VII.12. On 17-7-2004, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra filed an affidavit (Exhibit-H, page 124) in Writ Petition No.660 of 2004.2. ... The State Government, particularly the Urban Development Department, Textile Department and the Revenue Department have duly considered matters relating to the said Mazgaon lands in all its aspects to strike a balance between the need to continue the reservation and the practical need of the same and for that purpose had interdepartment meetings, meetings with Respondent No.2 Corporation, meetings with the third Respondent Company, the RMMS, the representative Union of workers and meetings with the Honble Chief Minister before the final decision was taken in February, 2004 to partially dereserve the said Mazgaon lands on the special stipulated conditions.3. ... The rights of the Respondent Company under the lease including for renewal of the term of the lease on the same terms (including the term of renewal), the right to assign the said lands etc., the interest of the Corporation in having the benefit of 50 per cent of the said Mazgaon lands free of monetary compensation (given the condition of its finances) and finally providing a means to give effect to a reservation provided since 1967, the special provisions of Regulation 58 to enable revival as part of Government policy etc. This was done after the various concerned departments of the State Government had given their views at different levels over a period of three years. ......21. I say that the Government considered the report of the Deputy Director of Town Planning and reviewed the entire matter, taking into account, inter alia, several of the above factors the revised revival proposal of Respondent No. 3 Company agreeing to a deletion of only 50 per cent of the reservation of the said Mazgaon lands instead of 100 per cent dereservation as proposed initially. The State Government in the public interest adopted a golden mean to subserve the various interests and on 5th January, 2004 it was decided that in order to resolve all issues satisfactorily by taking into account factors like the sanctioned scheme approved by the BIFR,the land required for Jeejamata Udyan and similarly payment of labour dues, etc., reservation on 50 per cent of the land was deleted. The Municipal Commissioner was present at the meeting held on 5th January, 2004 and had expressed his consent.22. Some modifications were made and conditions stipulated for the said deletion. Accordingly, after following the procedure under the MRTP Act, the State Government sanctioned the minor modification to the development plan by deletion of 50 per cent of the said Mazgaon lands for being designated as retention activity to be developed in accordance with Regulation 58 and the balance land under reservation adjoining the existing Jeejamata Udyan given to the Corporation for the extension of the Jeejamata Udyan. The development of the land released from reservation was on condition that the development would be in accordance with Regulation 58 and subject to the scheme as approved by the BIFR....24. I say that the impression sought to be created by the petition was that the State Government had literally granted largesse to the Respondent No.3 Company and that the Mill Owners were profiteering at the cost of public interest is misfounded. I say that the lands were lawfully leased to the 3 rd Respondent Company whose rights could not be brushed away as of no consequence. Further, the Petitioners have submitted that the government should acquire the land for a public purpose and Respondent No.3 be paid compensation taking into account the factors in Paragraph27 of the petition.25. ... The Corporation which would have acquired the said Mazgaon land, was in no financial condition to acquire the same. The State Government, with its various priorities, also has no financial resources to acquire the said land. The Respondent No.3 Company is in use and occupation of the said Mazgaon land under a subsisting lease which does not restrict the uses to which the same can be put to with provisions for renewal of the said lease on the same terms, (including the provision for renewal), with a right to assign parts of the said land with only a notice to the Lessor as provided therein, etc.26. I say that it was impossible to expect the Respondent No.3 Company to give up its right under the lease deeds. There was likelihood of protracted disputes and litigation, thereby resulting in the workers dues etc. being unsettled and a stalemate, which would not benefit anybody.(emphasis supplied)13. On 19-7-2004, one Chandrakant Krishna Watve, Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai filed an affidavit inreply in PIL Writ Petition No.660 of 2004. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this affidavit belies the MCGMs present stand. {Exhibit-PP, page 340 (123) The same are quoted:4(e) ... Subsequently, BIFR has approved the revival scheme on 30.10.2002 with total deletion of reservation of the reservation of extension to Veer Jijamata Udyan. The said issue of deletion is examined by the Govt. thereafter and in the public interest issued notification n/n TPB/432001/974/CR-76/ 200/UD11 on 10.2.2004, in exercise of the power vested under section 37(2) of the said Act, and retained the reservation of extension to Veer Jijamata Udyan to the extent of 50% of the land held by the said company. The said land is required to be handed over on noncash compensation basis as agreed by the said company. ...(f) The land on which the reservation of Extension to Veer Jijamata Udyan is retained shall be handed over by the owner to the Corporation fee of encumbrances on noncash compensation terms in accordance with provisions contained in the Regulations.ii) The development of land thus released from the reservation shall be available to the owner for being developed as per provisions of Regulation 58 of D.C.R. and shall also be subject to schemes approved by B.I.F.R.iii) The said company shall utilize the funds accrued out of development of land so released from reservation, primarily for adjustment of dues to be paid to the worker and payment of dues of financial institutions as stipulated by B.I.F.R. in approved scheme....5. In view of the above, I submit that present petition be disposed off accordingly and be dismissed with cost.(Emphasis supplied)14. In October, 2010, H. S. Thakker & Associates, Architects, for Mafatlal addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer (D.P.) City, MCGM in response to his letter dated 13-9-2010. It was stated that the lessees are entitled for grant of DRC as per the provisions of DCR No.34, Appendix IV. It was also stated that as per the Notification dated 10-2-2004, the land reserved for extension to Jijamata Udyan is to be handed over to the MCGM at the earliest. In view of the above, a request was made to forward the papers to the Legal Department for title verification and also issue letter to the Superintendent of Land Records (SLR) for joint measurement at the earliest.15. On 29-12-2010, Mafatlal addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, Building Proposals (City), MCGM confirming that they were willing to handover 50% of the balance land after deduction of road set back area out of plot bearing C.S. No.593 pursuant to the 2004 Notification. The petitioner/Mafatlal requested the Executive Engineer to ensure that the concerned authorities of the MCGM expedite the procedure for finalisation of the road setback demarcation to enable determination of the exact area to be handed over to the MCGM. Mafatlal also confirmed that they would claim TDR as per the said Notification and relevant DC Regulations for the land to be handed over.16. On 17-6-2011, the Development Agreement (DA) was executed between Mafatlal and Glider.17. By its internal Memos dated 1-3-2012 (Exhibit-L, page 228) and 12-3-2012 (Exhibit-O, page 252), the State directed the Collector to grant renewal of lease and development permission in respect of the subject land, subject to Mafatlal making payment of ad hoc development premium @ 10% of the ready reckoner value of the subject land.18. On 30-3-2012 (Exhibit-P, page 275), Mafatlal addressed a letter to the Collector, Mumbai City recording compliance of both the conditions stipulated by the Collector in the internal Memo dated 1-3-2012, viz., the issuance of Mafatlals undertaking and payment of redevelopment premium of Rs.9,77,72,606/-.19. On 9-5-2012 (Exhibit-Q, page 288), pursuant to the State Governments Memorandum dated 1-3-2012, the Collector passed an order granting permission to Mafatlal for development of the subject land and also approved renewal of Mafatlals leases for a period of 30 years. The order records the fact that Mafatlal had made a payment of Rs. 9,77,72,606/- (equal to 10% of the value of the land) towards interim premium and submitted an undertaking to pay the balance amount of the premium, if any, after the policy in this regard is finalised by the State [Petition: pg 299]. This interim premium was paid pursuant to the State Governments Memorandum dated 1-3-2012.20. On 5-2-2013 {page 340(165), the Collector addressed a letter to Mafatlal referring to Mafatlals letter dated 7-12-2012. They recorded their in principle approval for renewal of the leases for a period of 30 years and Mafatlals subsequent undertaking dated 30-3-2012. It was informed that the Government policy regarding renewal of leases in respect of Government lands had been issued vide Government Resolution dated 12-12-2012 and action for execution and renewal of the leases would be taken separately as per the said policy. Accordingly, the amount of the lease rent, as per the said revised policy, would be fixed and intimated to Mafatlal. After finalising the area under the 50% reserved land, area under road setback, etc., and after finalisation of the admissible F.S.I. for redevelopment, Mafatlal would be intimated the differential amounts payable which would be binding on Mafatlal. Till the execution of fresh lease deeds, as requested by Mafatlal, the MCGM was being separately informed for taking possession of the 50% reserved land.21. By his letter dated 25-7-2016 {Exhibit-VV1, page 340(148), the Executive Engineer (Development Plan) City wrote to Mafatlal requesting to inform whether fresh lease had been executed with the Collector and if so, a copy to be submitted and on compliance thereof, the proposal for grant of DRC shall be processed further on merits.22. On 2282016 (Exhibit-R, page 306), the 2016 amendment to Section 295 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC for short), adding a proviso thereto effective from the commencement of the said Code received the assent of the Governor. For convenience, the proviso as added by way of the 2016 amendment is extracted hereinbelow:Provided that, all leases granted by the State Government or the Collector of the land or foreshore vested in the Government for whatever term, which were in existence on or before the date of commencement of this Code or were granted thereafter, shall notwithstanding the conditions stipulated in such lease-deeds or lease-agreements or Grant order executed by the Collector, be also subject to the following conditions namely :(i) Leasehold rights in respect of the lands or foreshore vested in the Government given on lease may be further assigned or transferred only with the prior permission of the Collector on payment of such premium on account of unearned income and transfer fees or charges, at such rates as may be specified by the Government by an order, from time to time.(ii) In the case of any contravention of the provisions of sub-clause (i), the lessee or transferor of such leasehold rights, shall be liable to pay penalty in addition to such premium and transfer fees or charges, at such rates as may be specified by the Government by an order, from time to time.23. By her letter dated 15-10-2016 (Exhibit-W, page 318), the Collector contended that the DA allegedly violates the 2016 amendment and accordingly issued a demand notice to Mafatlal requiring it to pay an amount of Rs. 454,35,00,000/- being 75% of the consideration amount of Rs. 605,80,00,000/- under the DA.24. On 22-10-2016 {Exhibit-VV2, page 340(149), the MCGM wrote to M/s. S.V. Thakker & Associates, Architects of Mafatlal referencing letter from E.E.(D.P) City, dated 1102016, and informing to initiate process of handing over of reservation point of VJB Udyan as the period of six months was nearing completion.25. On 27-10-2016 (Exhibit-X, page 324), Mafatlal replied to the Collectors demand notice dated 15.10.2016 inter alia stating that it had acted in accordance with Indentures of Leases dated 14-5-1921 and 13-10-1923 and had maintained transparency and made all payments, charges, premiums in respect of the transaction documents dated 1762011.26. Mafatlal had been advised that neither the amendment to MLRC dated 21-11-2016 nor the resolution dated 21-11-1957 were applicable to the transaction. Additionally, the aforesaid provisions and demand in the letter dated 15-10-2017 cannot apply to transactions that have already taken place and irrevocably acted upon with all payments made to statutory authorities as required under the then applicable provisions of law and it was impossible to undo the actions that had already taken place and/or the effects that had occurred and accepted by the authorities. They requested for a personal hearing after 21-11-2016 so that all the issues can be appropriately dealt with and clarified.27. By his letter dated 8-11-2016 (Exhibit-Y, page 327), received by Mafatlal on 9112016, instead of granting personal hearing, the Recovery Officers communication enforces the impugned demand and threatens coercive action against Mafatlals subject land and its other properties if payment was not made in 20 days.28. On 9-11-2016 (Exhibit-Z, page 328), the Collector addressed a letter to Mafatlal referring to the demand letter dated 15-10-2016 and Mafatlals explanation vide their letter dated 27-10-2016 and fixing a hearing with all documents in the office of the Collector at 3:00 p.m. on 15-11-2016.29. On 11-11-2016 (Exhibit-AA, page 331), Mafatlal addressed a letter to the Collector stating that the notice dated 8-11-2016, received by them on 9-11-2016, rendered the hearing an empty formality as the Collector had appeared to have prejudged the issue without giving Mafatlal an opportunity of hearing.30. By their letter {Exhibit-VV3, page 340(150) addressed to the Assistant Engineer (B.P.) (CityIV) and received by him on 11-11-2016, M/s. H.S. Thakker & Associates, Architects of Mafatlal, informed the Assistant Engineer that the owners have agreed to handover the land reserved for VJB Udyan as per the terms and conditions of the layout approved and are also agreeable to the applicable policy as being adopted by the MCGM for taking over the reserved lands affected in the layout development.31. On 15-11-2016, a hearing was held in the office of the Collector. The Collector inter alia questioned Mafatlal on the construction of boundary wall on the said land.32. On 16-11-2016 (Exhibit-BB, page 334), the Collector addressed a letter to Mafatlal referring to the next hearing being fixed for 18-11-2016. It was stated that during the site inspection of the land by the Collectors office, it had come to notice that a wall had been constructed between the area to be transferred to the MCGM and the area remaining with Mafatlal. Mafatlal was called upon to submit an explanation as to the basis on which map and on whose permission the said wall was constructed and to submit the relevant documents at the time of the next hearing on 18-11-2016.33. On 18-11-2016 (Exhibit-CC, page 336), Federal & Rashmikant, Advocates for Mafatlal replied to the Collectors letter dated 16-11-2016. They referred to the events that transpired at the hearing held on 15-11-2016 and drew attention to the fact that the issue of the compound wall was brought to notice only at the hearing on 15-11-2016 and they had no instructions in the matter and had come for a personal hearing in relation to impugned communications dated 15-10-2016 and 8-11-2016. The relevant correspondence, permissions and plans relating to the Collectors query of the boundary wall constructed between the reserved land and land to be retained by Mafatlal were enclosed. It was also requested that the impugned communications be withdrawn or a fair opportunity be given to explain why the same should be withdrawn. A hearing was held before the Collector at 5:15 p.m..34. On 19-11-2016 {Exhibit-VV4, page 340(151), the MCGM wrote to M/s. H.S. Thakker & Associates, Architects of Mafatlal intimating to comply with the directions of the Municipal Commissioner in order to handover the MCGM land to the MCGM.35. On 23-11-2016, the petitioners filed the present petition.36. On 29-11-2016, this Honble Court passed an order restraining the State from taking any coercive action against Mafatlal. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:Till next date, respondent State are restrained from taking any coercive action against both the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order dated 15.10.2016 passed by the learned Collector, Mumbai.37. On 29-11-2016, the Collector made an entry in Mafatlals property card recording a purported warrant of attachment in respect of the property.38. On 6-12-2016 {Exhibit-VV5, page 340(152), the MCGM wrote to the Superintendent, Mumbai City, Survey and Land Records once again requesting to grant early appointment to Mafatlals Architects for joint measurement for the MCGM land.39. On 16-12-2016 {ExhibitVV7, page 340(154), M/s. H.S. Thakker & Associates, Architects, wrote to the Superintendent, Mumbai City Survey & Land Records requesting to carry out joint measurement for the reserved land as per the demarcation issued by the DP department as per sanctioned DP of E ward. They enclosed the necessary documents including MR plan, demarcation issued by E.E.(DP) City, approved amended layout, PR Card, C.S. Plan. They requested for the joint measurement to be carried out on priority as the MCGM has to take over the reserved land.40. On 16-12-2016 {Exhibit-VV6, page 340(153), the Executive Engineer, Building Proposals (City) wrote to Gliders Buildcon LLP, respondent No.4, stating that since the reserved land was not handed over within 6 months time period, all work on site was to be stopped from 18-12-2016 and shall not be started until the reserved land was handed over to the MCGM and intimation to start work was received.41. On 21-12-2016 {Exhibit-VV8, page 340(155), Mafatlal replied to the Executive Engineers letter dated 19-11-2016 asking the MCGM to take advance possession of the MCGM land from Mafatlal.42. On 26122016 {Exhibit-VV9, page 340(160), M/s. H.S. Thakker & Associates, Architects for Mafatlal addressed a letter to the Superintendent, Mumbai City Survey and Land Records in continuation of their application and submission alongwith documents and plans requesting for joint measurement of the land. It was understood that pursuant to their application dated 12-6-2016, joint measurement was scheduled on 26-12-2016 at 11:00 and was being carried out by officers of the SLR Department along with concerned officers of the MCGM. Demarcation was already issued by the D.P. Department of the MCGM and thereafter amended layout/subdivision had been approved by the Building Proposal Department pursuant to the SLR Departments MR plan showing the corrected setback area. It was stated that the MCGM was keen that Mafatlal handover the reserved land to them on priority as per provisions of the DCR, 1991, as amended from time to time, since they want to utilise the reserved land for expansion/modernization of the Zoo. They hoped to receive intimation of the measurement fees as per policy to be paid by Mafatlal so that the process of handing over of reserved land by Mafatlal can be completed.43. By its letter dated 27-12-2016 {Exhibit-VV10, page 340(161), received by Mafatlal on 31-12-2016, the MCGM replied to Mafatlals letter dated 21-122016 seeking clarification with respect to handing over of the MCGM land in view of the purported warrant of attachment.44. By its letter dated 5-1-2017 {Exhibit-VV11, page 340(162), Mafatlal responded to the Executive Engineers letter dated 27-12-2016 clarifying that since no warrant of attachment was served on Mafatlal or the land, there was no attachment effective in law. They reiterated their intention to comply with the obligation to hand over the reserved land to the MCGM. They reiterated that are ready and willing to hand over possession on the date and time that may be determined by the MCGM.45. On 6-1-2017, in the light of the various steps taken by the State to interfere with Mafatlals handing over of possession of the MCGM land to the MCGM, Mafatlal filed Notice of Motion No.5 of 2017 seeking orders from the Honble Court restraining interference with Mafatlals handing over of the MCGM land to the MCGM.46. On 7-1-2017, with a view to overreach Mafatlals Notice of Motion, representatives from the Collector and the MCGMs office arrived at the subject land and possession of the MCGM land was purportedly handed over to the MCGM by the Collector. A panchnama {Exhibit-EE, page 340(7) was prepared recording that vide Notification dated 11-2-2004 and Memo dated 1-3-2012, physical possession of the MCGM land has been handed over to the MCGM by the Government as per reservation demarcation plan dated 23-7-2013 after making inspection of the reserved demarcation.47. On 30-1-2017 {page 340(122), a letter was addressed by E.E. (D.P.) City (MCGM) to the Director (Zoo) stating that the MCGM had made a statement in the Honble Bombay High Court that the MCGM would provide security personnel on the MCGM land immediately. Accordingly, the Director (Zoo) was requested to deploy security personnel immediately to protect the land from encroachment.48. On 9-2-2017 {Exhibit-OO, page 340(121), a letter was addressed by the Director (Zoo) to the Assistant Security Officer (VJBU & Zoo, Byculla) (with copy marked to Mafatlal). In the said letter, the Director (Zoo) stated that security is currently arranged by Mafatlal. The Assistant Security Officer was instructed to arrange for the MCGMs security personnel at the property. For convenience, relevant paragraphs of the said letter are extracted hereinbelow:At present the security personnel has been deputed by Lessee Mafatlal Industries Limited (MIL) wherein as stated by MCGM during hearing before Honble High Court, Mumbai on 19-01-2017 and 27-01-2017, the provision of security staff is MCGMs responsibility. Accordingly, after possession of the said land, MCGM is abide to provide and depute the security at the said plot immediately.In view of the above, you are hereby directed to depute the necessary security staff on immediate basis so as to protect the land from any encroachment.Forwarded for urgent necessary action.Encl: as above (Dr. S.A. Tripathi) Director (Zoo) i/cCopy to:Shri. S.Y. KadamMafatlal Industries LimitedKaledonia, Office No.3,6th floor, Sahar Road,Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069Sir,In view of the above letter, you are hereby requested to remove the security staff deputed by Mafatlal Industries Ltd.Forwarded for information and further necessary action please.(Dr. S.A. Tripathi)Director (Zoo) i/c49. The petitioners submit that in the MCGMs affidavit in reply dated 8-2-2017 filed in Notice of Motion No.5 of 2017, it is falsely alleged that Mafatlal was not entitled to hand over possession of the MCGM land or to receive the benefits under the 2004 Notification.50. The MCGM filed its affidavit in reply dated 27-6-2017 (petition: page 422) in this petition. In this affidavit, the MCGM has taken the stand that one of Mafatlals leases expired in 2012 and the other lease will expire in 2022 and therefore Mafatlal has no legal right to claim noncash compensation as owners of the land. The MCGM also relied on two Government Resolutions (dated 29-6-1977 and 4-10-2010) to contend that handing over of Government lands for public convenience should be given free of cost to the planning authority. [para 6(d), (k) and (l) / pages 424 and 427].51. On 18-11-2017, a letter was addressed by the Collector to Mafatlal that pursuant to the internal Memo dated 1-3-2012 and order dated 9-5-2012, Mafatlal should make payment of the balance redevelopment premium of Rs.22,73,21,338/-.52. Accordingly, on 4-12-2017, Glider, the power of attorney holder of Mafatlal, made payment of the balance redevelopment premium of Rs.22,73,21,338/- to the Collector vide Pay Order dated 2-12-2017 bearing number 761597.53. On 27-4-2018, on the MCGMs mentioning, the Division Bench directed the matter to be placed on 3-5-2018. The same day, additional affidavit of Dr. Sanjaykumar Tripathi, Director (Zoo), [Petition: pg.488], on behalf of the MCGM, was served upon Mafatlal. In the aforesaid additional affidavit, the MCGM stated that as a result of the status quo order of 16-3-2017, the MCGM is unable to proceed with the plan for expansion of the Zoo at the VJB Udyan. Accordingly, the MCGM submitted that the issue of possession of the MCGM land be delinked from the pending issue before the Honble High Court.54. On 352018, in response to the aforesaid additional affidavit of the MCGM, Mafatlal filed an affidavit in reply (Petition: pg.492), wherein it was submitted that:(i) MCGM is creating a false sense of urgency and is seeking vacation of the order dated 16th March 2017 after more than a year;(ii) MCGM has falsely claimed to be in possession of the MCGM land; and(iii) the issue of possession of the MCGM land cannot be delinked from the pending issues before the Honble High Court.55. After referring to the part of the controversy covered by the Judgment and Order passed by this Bench on 3-5-2018, it is urged that the petitioner/Mafatlal received a letter from the Executive Engineer, Building Proposals (City) of the MCGM stating that since the reserved land was not handed over within six months time period, the work at the site will be stopped from 18-12-2016. That work shall not resume until the reserved land was handed over to the MCGM and intimation to start work was received. The petitioner/Mafatlal replied to this letter on 21-12-2016 requesting the MCGM to take advance possession of this land from them. Thus, the offer to handover possession was made. However, on 27-12-2016, the MCGM replied to this letter seeking clarification in respect to handing over of the land and which was under attachment. The petitioners refuted that there was any warrant of attachment served on them but maintained that they are ready and willing to handover possession on the date and time that may be determined by the MCGM. Thereafter, Notice of Motion No.5 of 2017 was moved in this petition seeking orders from this Court restraining interference with the petitioners handing over of the reserved land to the MCGM. It is alleged that with a view to overreach the hearing of this Notice of Motion, representatives from the office of the Collector, Mumbai City and the MCGM arrived at the site and possession of the land was handed over to the MCGM by the Collector.56. The petitioners say that on 30-1-2017, a letter was addressed by the Executive Engineer (Development Plan) City of the MCGM to the Director of the Zoo stating that in the Court a statement was made by the MCGM that it will provide certain security personnel on the land immediately. Thus, the MCGM says that because of this statement made, the Director (Zoo) should deploy security personnel to protect the land from encroachment. Thereafter, correspondence followed between that Director and the MCGM officials with copy marked to the petitioner/Mafatlal. But according to the petitioners, this security was arranged by petitioner No.1.57. It is then stated that, in an affidavit filed in Notice of Motion No.5 of 2017 the MCGM alleged that Mafatlal was not entitled to receive the benefits under the 2004 Notification. It maintains that the possession of the land was not taken over from Mafatlal but from the Collector. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners would submit that this issue arose for consideration.58. There is an affidavit filed in reply to this writ petition by the MCGM. In that affidavit in reply, the MCGM says that it has not been concerned with the issue raised in the petition but was dragged into the litigation on account of possession of the land taken to the extent required for extension of the VJB Udyan at Byculla. At that point of time, an attempt is made to drag the MCGM in the litigation. It is stated that the land under reference is owned by the State Government. It was leased to Mafatlal Industries Limited for 99 years. From the title certificate submitted by the Solicitors of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Limited, there are two Lease Deeds but their present status is not known. One lease expired in the year 2012 for which the petitioner/lessee has no right to claim compensation. For the second land, the lease will expire in 2022. However, the petitioner/Mafatlal as a lessee has no legal right to claim compensation in respect of the land. If that is the position in law, then, the Notification of 2004 would not enable the petitioners to claim compensation in the year 2017. Thus, the assertion of the petitioners that they are the owners of the land, is not tenable. It is claimed that it is the Government of Maharashtra and not the Urban Development Department which sanctioned the modification to the Development Plan under Section 37(2) of the MRTP Act whereby 50% of the net reservation area (after deduction of road setback area) of the above land is deleted from the reservation and designated as retention activity. The remaining 50% of the net area continues to be reserved for the reservation, subject to the conditions stipulated in the Notification in question. After referring to the terms and conditions of this Notification, it is urged that the fifth respondent to this writ petition, namely, the MCGM, has taken over possession of this land admeasuring 27,284.36 square metres on 7-1-2017 from the Staff of the Superintendent of Land Records with due permission of the Municipal Commissioner of the MCGM. Now, all concerned Departments of the MCGM have been informed to take up the development and maintenance. That is how even the security guards were to be deployed. It is urged that a perusal of this Government Notification would reveal that it was essentially to enable Mafatlal to utilise the funds accrued out of development of the land released from reservation for adjustment of the dues of the workers and also for payment of dues of financial institutions. That was after developing the balance 50% area as per Regulation 58 of the DCR, 1991. Thus, petitioner No.1/lessee has already been compensated by the Government of Maharashtra by releasing 50% of the total reserved plot under reference. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation. More so, on the basis that they are the owners of the land. For all these reasons, it is submitted that the writ petition be dismissed.59. Then, an affidavit in rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners and while reiterating the contents of the memo of the writ petition, Chamber Summons No.90 of 2017 and Notice of Motion No.5 of 2017, it is urged that now the subject Notification is totally misread and misinterpreted. It is the petitioners who have handed over possession of the land and the MCGM cannot claim that it has taken over the possession from the Collector, Mumbai City or its representative. Thus, there is now a distortion of the true and correct facts. Be that as it may, it will not alter the position with regard to the entitlement to noncash compensation. All the more because it was not the petitioners but it is the MCGM which filed an affidavit dated 19-7-2004 in Public Interest Litigation WP No.660 of 2004 acknowledging the fact that petitioner No.1 was entitled to noncash compensation in terms of this 2004 Notification upon the handover of the MCGM land to respondent No.5. It is stated further that relying upon this affidavit and the statement of the MCGM therein, this Court passed an order on 18-7-2009/ 23-9-2009 r/w 10-11-2009 that in terms of this Notification of the Government of Maharashtra dated 10-2-2004, noncash compensation was payable to petitioner No.1. Hence, the MCGM cannot contravene or contradict its earlier stand set out on affidavit. In these circumstances, it is urged that the writ petition be allowed.60. There is an additional affidavit filed on 27-4-2018 by one Sanjaykumar A. Tripathi, working as Director (Zoo), having his office at VJB Udyan & Zoo, Byculla, Mumbai. He says that the purpose of this affidavit is to bring on record the urgency in implementing a master plan of the Zoo. It is stated that there are number of visitors to the Zoo. That is continuously increasing. Now certain facilities so as to house Penguins are introduced. On an average, between the year 2015 and 2017, before the development work, the visitors figure was approximately 12 to 13 lakhs. After completion of PhaseI work, this figure has increased upto 19 lakhs in the year 2017 to 2018. Now the development of PhaseII work has commenced. Various animals enclosure facilities and particularly for Tigers, Lions, etc., are to be in place. The Phase-II work could not be taken to its conclusion simply because the authorities had to shift or relocate some of the animals into temporary enclosures or quarantine facility which is very cumbersome and detrimental to the health of the animals. It may also result in violation of certain laws, particularly the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Hence, a request was made to vacate the order of status quo and to allow the Phase-II and Phase-III work to be completed. The issue of the alleged entitlement of the petitioners and possession of the land should be delinked from the development of the Zoo, as above.61. Even this affidavit of the MCGM has been replied to by the petitioners on 7-5-2018 and they asserted that a false statement is made that the MCGM is in possession of the land. It is claimed that the issues cannot be delinked. Hence, this version of the MCGM should be disbelieved and the petitioners be granted the relief, as prayed.62. It is on the above material that we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.63. Mr. Khambata, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the attempt made by the MCGM to take possession of the land was wholly illegal. It is not proper to read the Notification as if the petitioners have no right, title and interest in the land at all. The MCGM is contradicting itself and trying to wriggle out of its solemn statement made on oath in the affidavit filed by it in the Public Interest Litigation. In that affidavit, it is categorically admitted by the MCGM that the possession of the said land is with the petitioners and that they are entitled to noncash compensation in terms of the subject Notification. Mr. Khambata would submit that the issue raised in this petition must be understood in the backdrop of the support of the MCGM to the petitioners in that Public Interest Litigation. Mr. Khambata would submit that the first respondent to this writ petition deleted the reservation in respect of 50% of petitioner No.1s leasehold land and this land was redesignated as retention activity. This land, therefore, stood released from reservation and was made available to petitioner No.1 for being developed as per the provisions of Regulation 58 of the DCR, 1991. This Regulation is on the subject of development or redevelopment of lands of cotton textile mills. The funds generated from such development were to be primarily used for adjustment of the dues of Mafatlals workers and financial institutions, as stipulated in the BIFR approved scheme. The remaining 50% of the larger land continued to be under reservation for the extension of the Zoo and was to be made over by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.5, free of encumbrances on noncash compensation terms. That is how the correspondence commenced and it is surprising that the MCGM is now alleging that the petitioners are not entitled to noncash compensation. It is thus a somersault or turn around which is wholly untenable in law. It is urged by Mr. Khambata, that on the plain language of this Notification we should not accept the arguments of the MCGM to the contrary.64. Mr. Khambata elaborated his arguments on the interpretation and construction of this Notification in the following terms:4. Plain language of the 2004 Notification and construction thereof: 4.1 The language of the 2004 Notification is clear and unambiguous. It specifically provides for noncash compensation to be given to Petitioner No.1, against hand over of the MCGM land to Respondent No.5. [Petition: pg 122 para A(i)] This is plain, when one reads the opening and operative paragraphs [more particularly subparagraphs (i) and (ii)] of the 2004 Notification which specifically states and treats Petitioner No.1 as the owner for the purposes of 2004 Notification.4.2 Respondent No.5 is seeking to misconstrue the 2004 Notification by contending that possession was to be handed over to it by the Owner and that since, the MCGM land is leased, the term Owner must mean Respondent Nos.1 and 2. This interpretation is belied by a plain reading of the 2004 Notification itself and Respondent No.5s consistent conduct.4.3 For multifold reasons, Respondent No.5s contention that for the purposes of the 2004 Notification, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be treated as owners of MCGM land, is liable to be rejected. It is respectfully submitted that, for the purposes of and for giving effect to the 2004 Notification, it is only Petitioner No.1 who was stated to be, is liable to be treated as and is entitled to benefits as Owner. This is, for the following reasons:(i) Petitioner No.1 is the perpetual lessee of the Larger land, which includes, the MCGM land. Hence, at all material times and for the purposes of the 2004 Notification, it is Petitioner No.1 who was and is liable to be treated as the Owner of the Larger land.(ii) The first sentence of the 2004 Notification, unequivocally states that the Larger land is owned by Petitioner No.1. This makes it plain that the term Owner as appearing in the 2004 Notification refers to Petitioner No.1.(iii) It is incongruous for Respondent No.5 to contend that the term Owner as appearing in 2004 Notification connotes and denotes Respondent No.1. Any such construction is illogical and absurd. This is for more than one reason. First, there was no question of Respondent No.1 requiring to issue a notification to hand over possession of its own land to either Respondent No.5 or itself. Second, undisputedly, as on 10th February 2004 it is Petitioner No.1 who was in possession of the Larger land as a lessee. Therefore, there is no way in which Respondent No.1 could have handed over possession of the MCGM land to Respondent No.5, as is required under the 2004 Notification. Third, there is no explanation from Respondent No.5 as to what noncash compensation was it liable to pay Respondent No.1 under clause (i) of the 2004 Notification. Fourth, equally, if Respondent No.5s misconstruction is to be applied, there can be no basis as to how Respondent No.1 can under sub clause (ii) use balance 50% for retention activity. Last, sub clause (iii) of the 2004 Notification provides that the said company (Petitioner No.1) shall utilize funds from development of land released from reservation. For all these reasons, it is plain that the terms Owner/said company as appearing in the 2004 Notification denote and connote only Petitioner No.1.65. Mr. Khambata, in the alternative and without prejudice to the above submits that even if the possession is with the MCGM, still this Notification is attracted. The obligation to pay the noncash compensation arises from this Notification itself. The principle of estoppel precludes respondent Nos.1 and 5 from placing any other interpretation on this Notification. Thus, the same stand, namely, the MCGM cannot wriggle or back out from its earlier position emerging from the pleadings in the Public Interest Litigation, is reiterated by Mr. Khambata relying on the principle of estoppel. Then, Mr. Khambata relies upon the correspondence to urge that the same is a contemporaneous record. Mr. Khambata would submit that noncash compensation is not equal to TDR (Transferable Development Rights) and that TDR is a negotiable instrument, is an argument which cannot be now urged. There is no such stand taken on affidavit. Assuming while denying that TDR is a negotiable instrument, the same still does not and cannot make it a cash compensation. Hence, in no way, the MCGM can refuse to grant this noncash compensation. Mr. Khambata concluded his arguments by taking us through the annexures to the writ petition and the affidavits on record.66. In support of his above contentions, Mr. Khambata placed heavy reliance on the following Judgments:(1) Pune Municipal Corporation & Another V/s. Promoters and Builders Association & Another, reported in (2004) 10 SCC 796 ;(2) Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited V/s. State of Maharashtra & Others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 24 ;(3) Pune Municipal Corporation & Another V/s. Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Another, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 753 ;(4) Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited V/s. State of Kerala & Others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 55 ;(5) Spentex Industries Limited V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise & Others, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 780 ;(6) Inder Parshad V/s. Union of India & Others, reported in (1994) 5 SCC 239 , and(7) Union of India V/s. A. Ajit Singh S/o S. Chet Singh, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 50. 67. On the other hand, Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent/MCGM would urge that none of the arguments of Mr. Khambata can be accepted both on facts and in law. Mr. Sakhare has taken us through the prayers in the writ petition to urge that the MCGM is right in contending that the petitioners have no legally subsisting right for it may be that a lease was executed in their favour. However, that is not renewed, admittedly. In any event and without prejudice to this argument, Mr. Sakhare would submit that the fact that the petitioners asserted their right in the land on the basis of the lease itself denotes that the State Government is the lessor and the lessor is the owner of the land. It is only when that condition is satisfied that the lease can be obtained. Thus, the Government continues to be the owner of the land. Hence it was the obligation of the Government, and particularly the duty of the Collector to handover the subjectland to the MCGM. That was handed over free of encumbrances on noncash compensation term. The petitioners cannot derive any benefit from this Notification. All the more, when 50% of the land is retained by the petitioners and is available for its development. From that development, it is evident that the purpose and object of this Government Notification and the modification to the Development Plan is served. Now, a new arrangement has come into existence. If that arrangement is now termed as a substantive agreement by the petitioners, then, in writ jurisdiction they cannot seek enforcement of the same. The nomenclature as owners against the petitioners name will not make the petitioners the owners of the Government land/public property. Mr. Sakhare has taken us through some of the clauses of the Lease Deed, and particularly the renewal clause. It is submitted that one lease expired in the year 2012 and another in 2017. There is no fresh lease executed. Mr. Sakhare then took us through the Development Control Regulations and particularly Appendix VII. He would submit that the true and correct nature of the TDR is that it is a negotiable instrument. It could not have been therefore granted, as is claimed by the MCGM. In such circumstances, the words noncash compensation should be understood in the factual background in which that Notification is issued. No rights are conferred by that Notification in the petitioners to claim TDR.68. Mr. Sakhare has also taken us through one of the recent Notifications of the Government of Maharashtra (Urban Development Department) dated 16-1-2016 sanctioning modification to Regulation 34 in the DCR, 1991. Mr. Sakhare would, therefore, submit that the petition be dismissed.69. For properly appreciating the rival contentions, we may usefully refer to the subjectNotification. Everything turns on construction of this Notification. A perusal of this Notification leaves us in no manner of doubt that land admeasuring 58,197.97 square metres out of City Survey No.593 of Mazgaon Division, styled as the said land, may have been termed in this Notification to be owned by M/s. Mafatlal Industries Limited. The Notification reads thus:Development Plan of E Ward of MumbaiSanction under section 37(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to piece land reserved for Extension to Veer Jijamata Udyan as Retention ActivityGOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRAUrban Development DepartmentMantralaya, Mumbai 400 032Dated the 10th February 2004.NOTIFICATIONNo. TPB 432001/974/GR-76/2001/UD-11Land measuring 58,197.97 sq. mt. out of CS No. 593 of Mazgaon Division, (hereinafter referred to as (the said land), owned by M/s. Mafatlal Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said Company), stands reserved for Extension to Veer Jijamata Udyan (hereinafter referred to as the said purpose) as per the proposals of the development plan of E Ward (hereinafter referred to as the said Plan), sanctioned by Government, vide Urban Development Departments Notification No. TPB4391/ 2229/UD11( RDP) dated the 6th November, 1991, under section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). On the said land is located a cotton textile mill unit (hereinafter referred to as the said Mill).The said plan is revised after the earlier development plan of 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the said earlier plan) under section 38 of the said Act. In the said earlier plan also, the said land was reserved for the said purpose, and, in the revised development plan published under section 26 of the said Act and submitted to Government under section 30 of the said Act by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation), the said reservation was deleted from the said land, which was then placed in retention activity. However, while according sanction by the State Government to the revised development plan of E Ward, the said land was kept reserved for the said purpose as aforesaid.The said Mill was a running industry up to June, 2000, after which taking into the consideration the financial constraints faced by the said company and the complete erosion of its net worth leading to closure of its activities, the units of the said company was declared sick by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industries (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.Now, the said company has approached the Government with a proposal to commercially exploit its lands at Lower Parel and Mazgaon and, so as to generate funds generated from the development, to partly revive the said mill and to pay its various dues. In this connection, the said company has requested to delete the reservation on the said land. The said company intends to carry out the developments in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation No. 58 of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 as modified in the year 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the said modified regulation).The entire issue has been examined with reference to the possible development of the said land as per the proposals of the said plan visavis the revival scheme of the said mill as envisaged by the said company. It has been noticed that the revival scheme of the said mill, upon its approval by BIFR, will restore the viability of the said mill and also enable it to pay various dues, including labour dues. This would also help to some extent, to protect the jobs of workers of the said mill. However, for this purpose, it is necessary that the said land is released from the reservation and placed in retention activity.Under the circumstances, upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances referred to above and other related issues, Government, in the larger public interest, found it expedient to take necessary steps to promote the implementation of the revival package of the said company and, for that purpose, the Government found it expedient to delete the said reservation, conditionally and place the deleted land as retention activity, after following the procedure laid down under section 37 of this Act. It was also felt necessary that the said reservation be deleted on the express condition that, after deletion, the land shall be developed scrupulously in accordance with the provisions contained in the modified regulation No. 58 of the said Regulations and also as per the package of measures as may be approved by BIFR in accordance with it.Accordingly, Government in exercise of the powers vested under section 37(1) of the said Act, vide order of even number dated 4th July, 2001, had directed Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the said directions) to delete the said reservation from the said land and designated the said land so deleted as Retention Activity (more specifically described in the directions thereunder).Further as provided in subsection (1) of section 37 of the said Act, the said Corporation was required to publish a notice regarding the said modification in official gazette within a period of 60 days from the date of issue of the said directions. However, the Corporation has failed to publish the requisite notice within the stipulated period of sixty days.In view of the powers vested under section 37(1A) of the said Act, Government had, issued the notice dated 23/1/2002, regarding proposed modification, thereby invited suggestions / objections from the general public within a period of one month from the date of publication of the notice in the official Maharashtra Government Gazette and has accordingly also appointed the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai, having his office at E Block, ENSA Hutments, Azad Maidan, Mumbai 400 001, as officer (hereinafter referred to as the said Officer) under Section 162 (1) of the said Act, to submit his report to Government upon the suggestions/objections that may be received, within thirty days after expiry of the abovementioned period.The notice was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 16/5/2002 and the said notice was also published in the newspapers, namely, Tarun Bharat dated 4/5/2002 (Marathi) and Free Press Journal dated 4/5/2002 (English).The said officer has submitted his report to Government on 25/7/2002 after completing the legal procedure as contemplated under section 37(1) of the said Act.The BIFR has approved the revival scheme envisaging total deletion of the reservation of Extension of Veer Jeejamata Udyan on 30th October, 2002.Government has examined the issue of deletion of the aforesaid reservation in the light of existence of Veer Jijamata Udyan and the facts that the said company the said company has to pay workers dues and other dues and that the said company has agreed to handover reserved land on non cash compensation basis, as well. Considering these facts and the other related ones, Government finds it expedient in the public interest, to retain the reservation of Extension to Veer Jeejamata Udyan to the extent of 50% of the land held by the said company (excluding land under road set back) and release the reservation on remaining land.After examining the report of the said officer, the suggestions / objections received thereupon and after consulting the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune, Government finds it necessary to sanction the said modifications with some changes.Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 37(2) of the said Act, Government is hereby pleased to MODIFICATION A) Sanctions the said modification proposal as under:50% of the net reservation area (i.e. after deduction of Road Set Back area) is deleted from Extension to V.J.B. Udyan and the area so deleted is designated as Retention Activity, while remaining 50% of the net area is retained as reserved for Extension to V.J.B. Udyan subject to following conditions (as more specifically shown on the plan enclosed):i) The land on which the reservation of Extension to Veer Jeejamata Udyan is retained shall be handed over by the owner to the Corporation free of encumbrances on non cash compensation terms, in accordance with provisions contained in regulations.ii) The development of land thus released from the reservation, shall be available to the owner for being developed as per provisions of regulation 58 of DCR for Greater Mumbai and the same shall also be subject to the scheme as approved by BIFR.iii) The said company shall utilize the funds accrued out of the development of lands so released from reservation primarily for adjustment of the dues of the workers and also for payment of dues of Financial Institutions as stipulated by BIFR in the approved scheme.iv) As per the stamped undertaking submitted by the company to Government, the said company shall recommence their spinning activity of 10000 spindles as stipulated by BIFR.B) Fixes the date of coming into force of these modifications as the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette.C) Direct the said Corporation that in the schedule of modifications appended to the aforesaid Government Notification sanctioning the said Regulations, after the last entry, the above entry (I) shall be added.By order and in the name of Governor of MaharashtraSd/-(Abhiraj Girkar)Under Secretary to GovernmentThe land is reserved for extension of VJB Udyan as per the proposals of the Development Plan of E Ward sanctioned by the Government on 6-11-1991. On that land is located a cotton textile mill unit. This reservation continued after the term of the Development Plan of 1967 was over. In the earlier plan also, the land was reserved for extension to VJB Udyan, and in the revised Development Plan published under Section 26 of the MRTP Act and submitted to Government under Section 30 of the MRTP Act by the MCGM, the reservation was deleted from that land and it was placed in retention activity. However, while according sanction by the State Government to the revised Development Plan of E-Ward, the said land was kept reserved for the said purpose. The cotton textile mill was a running industry upto June, 2000, after which, taking into consideration the financial constraints faced by the company and the complete erosion of its net-worth leading to closure of its activities, the unit of the said company was declared sick by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR for short) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.70. What is relevant and material for our purpose is that it is this textile unit/company which approached the Government with a proposal to commercially exploit its lands at Lower Parel and Mazgaon so as to generate funds and from these funds generated pursuant to the development of these lands, to partially revive the said mill and to pay its various dues. The company, therefore, requested that the reservation be deleted. It said that it intends to carry out development in accordance with Regulation 58 of the DCR, 1991, as modified in the year 2001.71. The entire issue was examined with reference to the possible development of the said land as per the proposals of the Development Plan visavis the revival scheme of the said mill as envisaged by the said company. The Government was of the view that after the revival scheme is approved by the BIFR, that will restore the viability of the said mill and also enable it to pay various dues, including labour dues. That would also help to some extent to protect the job of workers of the said mill. However, for this purpose it is necessary that the said land is released from the reservation and placed in retention activity.72. In these circumstances, after considering all the facts and related issues, the Government, in larger public interest, found it expedient to take necessary steps to promote the implementation of the revival package of the said company and for that purpose the Government found it expedient to delete the said reservation conditionally and placed the deleted land as retention activity after following the procedure laid down under Section 37 of the MRTP Act. In the Notification itself it is clarified that the deletion of the reservation would be conditional. It is necessary that a condition be imposed on the petitioners that after deletion, the land shall be developed scrupulously in accordance with the provisions contained in the modified Regulation 58 of the DCR, 1991, as also as per the package of measures, as may be approved by the BIFR in accordance with law. That is why the Government in exercise of the powers vested under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act, vide order of even number dated 4-7-2001, had directed the MCGM to delete the said reservation from the said land and designated the said land so deleted as retention activity. The MCGM was therefore directed to comply with the requirements of Section 37 of the MRTP Act but it failed to publish the requisite notice within the stipulated period of 60 days. That is how the Government of Maharashtra relied upon its powers under Section 37(1A) of the MRTP Act and issued the notice dated 23-1-2002, regarding proposed modification, and thereby invited suggestions/objections from the general public within a period of one month from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette and it appointed the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai, as officer, to submit his report to the Government. That would be regarding the suggestions/objections that may be received after the expiry of the period stipulated in its notice. Thus, this notice was published in the Government Gazette on 16-5-2002 and prior thereto in two newspapers.73. After receipt of the report from the officer, the Government completed the procedure and also noted that in the meanwhile the BIFR had approved the revival package envisaging total deletion of the reservation of extension of VJB Udyan on 30-10-2002.74. A careful perusal of this Notification leaves us in no manner of doubt that total deletion of the reservation was not accepted. There was already a Zoo in existence and its extension was required in public interest. That was also necessary for carrying forward the purpose of the Development Plan. It is in these circumstances that the Government of Maharashtra decided to retain the reservation by extension to VJB Udyan but restricted it to the extent of 50% of the land. It decided to release the remaining land from this reservation so as to enable the company to develop the property in order to satisfy the dues of the workers and other dues. This Notification itself records the fact that the company has agreed to handover the reserved land on noncash compensation basis.75. The Government, therefore, exercised its powers under Section 37(2) of the MRTP Act and sanctioned the modification, subject to conditions. If one reads the operative part of this Notification and under the heading/title MODIFICATION, it is evident that the conditional modification cannot be read in the manner suggested by Mr. Khambata. If the conditions are perused in totality or read together and harmoniously, it is evident that had it not been for this partial deletion by the Government, the reservation on the said land would have continued. Thus, the entire land would then have continued under reservation for the public purpose of extension of VJB Udyan. It was then not possible to use the land or develop it for any other purpose, save and except the notified one. If the total deletion of the reservation was sought by the petitioners, but that was not agreed upon and even the partial deletion is conditional, then, the petitioners cannot pick one of the terms and conditions and read it in isolation or to their benefit. If this modification to the Development Plan had not been granted and in the form issued by the State Government, then, it was not possible for the petitioners to develop the land under Regulation 58 of the DCR, 1991 and to the extent of 50% as per this Notification. That it can be developed under this Regulation by styling the petitioners as owners is only to enable them to get the benefit or advantage of the DC Regulation 58. That is specifically inserted in the DC Regulations to enable obtaining of FSI which is attached to the lands in use and possession of textile units/mills in Greater Mumbai. It is only after partial release from the reservation in terms of the Development Plan, that the petitioners could have developed the land to the extent of 50% and as permitted above, and utilised the funds generated from the development of land so released from reservation primarily for adjustment of dues of workers and also for payment of its outstanding dues of financial institutions, as stipulated by the BIFR. Thus, to implement and execute so also enforce the BIFR revival scheme, that this modification in the Development Plan has been made. The condition is to recommence the spinning activity of 10,000 spindles, as stipulated in the BIFR scheme.76. The basic premise on which Mr. Khambatas arguments are canvassed is fallacious and incorrect. The subject Notification is not the one acquiring the private property for public purpose under the sovereign power founded on the right of eminent domain vesting in the State. The subject Notification, as held above, is for effecting a major modification in the sanctioned Development Plan by exercising a statutory power conferred vide Section 37 of the MRTP Act, 1966. That modification is sanctioned conditionally. This is not to be confused with a power to acquire some interest in the land. The land to the extent released is the consideration based on which the rest of the land already under lease with the petitioners can be developed or redeveloped to the fullest by reaping the fruits of D.C. Regulation 58. That allows a land leased for industrial purpose to a textile mill to be redeveloped in terms thereof so that its potential in the market can be exploited to the maximum. It was not possible unless the reservation for public purpose is deleted. For deletion of that alone, partially, the subject Notification is issued. The ownership of the land admittedly vests in the State. The State is not required to acquire its own land. It cannot take recourse to the power of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the law now prevailing enabling acquisition of a private land or any interest therein. This position in law is amply clarified in the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sharda Devi v/s. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2003 SC 942 . The Honble Supreme Court held as under:11. In order to appreciate the controversy, we will briefly examine the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, also extracting and reproducing some of the statutory provisions as may be required.12. Person interested is defined by clause (b) of Section 3 as under:"The expression person interested includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land."31. We have entered into examining the scheme of the Act and exploring the difference between reference under Section 18 and the one under Section of the Act as it was necessary for finding out answer to the core question staring before us. The power to acquire by State the land owned by its subjects hails from the right of eminent domain vesting in the State which is essentially an attribute of sovereign power of the State. So long as the public purpose subsists the exercise of the power by the State to acquire the land of its subjects without regard to the wishes or willingness of the owner or person interested in the land cannot be questioned. (See Scindia Employees Union v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1996) 10 SCC 150 , para 4 and State of Maharashtra v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh and others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 475, para 7. The State does not acquire its own land for it is futile to exercise the power of eminent domain for acquiring rights in the land, which already vests in the State. It would be absurdity to comprehend the provisions of Land Acquisition Act being applicable to such land wherein the ownership or the entirety of rights already vests in the State. In other words, the land owned by the State on which there are no private rights or encumbrances is beyond the purview of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The position of law is so clear as does not stand in need of any authority to support. Still a few decided cases in point may be referred since available.32. In Collector of Bombay v. Nusurwanji Rattanji Mistri and others (supra) this Court held that when the Government acquires lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it must be for a public purpose, and with a view to put them to that purpose, the Government acquires the sum total of all private interests subsisting in them. If the Government has itself an interest in the land, it has only to acquire the other interests outstanding thereof so that it might be in a position to pass it on absolutely for public user. An interesting argument was advanced before the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the right of the Government to levy assessment on the lands is an encumbrance and that encumbrance is capable of acquisition. The Court held that the word encumbrance as occurring in Section 16 can only mean interests in respect of which a compensation was made under Section or could have been claimed. It cannot include the right of the Government to levy assessment on the lands. The Act does not contemplate the interest of the Government in any land being valued or compensation being awarded therefor.33. In Secretary of State v. Sri Narain Khanna AIR 1942 PC 35 it was held that where the Government acquires any property consisting of land and buildings and where the land was subject-matter of the Government grant, subject to the power of resumption by Government at any time on giving one months notice, then the compensation was payable only in respect of such buildings as may have been authorized to be erected and not in respect of the land.34. In In the matter of the Land Acquisition Act: Govt. of Bombay Vs. Esufali Salebhai 34 Bom 618 (at page 636), Bachelor, J held that the Government are not debarred from acquiring and paying for the only outstanding interests merely because the Act, which primarily contemplates all interests as held outside Government, directs that the entire compensation based upon the market value of the whole land must be distributed among the claimants. The Government was held liable to acquire and pay only for the superstructure as it was already the owner of the land.35. In Deputy Collector, Calicut Division v. Aiyavu Pillay, 9 Ind Cas 341 (Mad), Wallis, J. observed that the Act does not contemplate or provide for the acquisition of any interest which already belongs to Government in land which is being acquired under the Act but only for the acquisition of such interests in the land as do not already belong to the Government.36. In Collector of Bombay v. Nusurwanji Rattanji Mistri and others (supra), the decision in Esufali Salebhais case and Aiyavu Pillays case were cited with approval. Expressing its entire agreement with the said views the Court held that when Government possesses an interest in land which is the subject of acquisition under the Act, that interest is itself outside such acquisition because there can be no question of Government acquiring what is its own. An investigation into the nature and value of that interest is necessary for determining the compensation payable for the interest outstanding in the claimants but that would not make it the subject of acquisition. In land acquisition proceedings there is no value of the right of the Government to levy assessment on the lands and there is no award of compensation therefor. It was, therefore, held by a Division Bench of Judicial Commissioners in Mohammad Wajeeh Mirza v. Secretary of State for India in Council, AIR 1921 Oudh 31 that the question of title arising between the Government and another claimant cannot be settled by the judge in a reference under Section of the Act. When the Government itself claims to be owner of the land there can be no question of its acquisition and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applicable. In our opinion the statement of law so made by the learned Judicial Commissioners is correct.Acquisition is not the situation before us at all. The condition based on which the balance of 50% of the land released from reservation could have been developed in terms of the BIFR scheme is that the rest of it continues under reservation for extension of VJB Udyan and to that extent the land, as demarcated, would have to be handed over free of encumbrances on noncash compensation terms to the MCGM, then, it is evident that there is no question of any compensation to be awarded either way. Meaning thereby, either in cash or noncash basis. There is nothing emerging from this Notification which the petitioners can seek, much less as of right from the MCGM. The whole petition to this extent is misconceived. It is as if the petitioners claim to be absolute owners of the land and that they are being deprived of its use, enjoyment and benefits because of the surrender thereof in part for use by the MCGM that they should be compensated, is the foundation of the petitioners case. That foundation itself has no legal support. The petitioners are neither absolute owners nor they have such right as they can seek to enforce against the MCGM. They are not deprived of their property or kept out of its enjoyment by a procedure unknown to law. This is, therefore, not a case where a person is being deprived of his property, save by authority of law. All those cases in which a person is deprived of his property, save by authority of law, are clear. In those cases, the State Government or the Planning Authority by a mere designation or reservation of lands for a public purpose, but without acquiring them in accordance with law, deprive the owners thereof of their rights, that this principle would come into play. This is enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In that event, even the guarantee of equality flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India is breached and violated. This is not a case of that nature. This is a case where the requirement of the land for a predesignated public purpose is fulfilled by balancing the rights and equities of the petitioners as lessees of Government land or public properties. Pertinently, the petitioners are not challenging the power of the State Government to make a conditional modification in the Development Plan or proposal. The power flowing from the substantive provisions of the MRTP Act can be exercised unconditionally or by imposing terms and conditions consistent with the object and purpose of the MRTP Act. Even the conditions of the Notifications are not challenged. It is but a reading and construction thereof to their advantage which is attempted by the petitioners in this petition. Once we find that such an attempt cannot succeed, then, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, particularly in terms of the prayers set out hereinabove.77. None of the decisions cited by Mr. Khambata would assist the petitioners.78. In those decisions, the controversy was entirely different. The ambit and scope of powers conferred by Section 37 of the MRTP Act was in issue in Pune Municipal Corporation V/s. Promoters and Builders Association (supra). The principle of estoppel and particularly promissory estoppel was pressed into service but even that attempt was not successful because the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against statutes. The backdrop in which all these issues arose for determination and consideration are totally different and distinct. The question was whether the State Government can make any changes on its own in the modifications submitted by the Planning Authority or not. It is answering that issue in favour of the Pune Municipal Corporation and rejecting all the arguments to the contrary that this Judgment was rendered. Far from assisting the petitioners before us, some of the observations in this Judgment would militate against the contentions of Mr. Khambata.79. In the case of Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (supra), the facts were peculiar. The plots of the appellants and the petitioners therein were shown in the Development Plan as reserved for roads. They voluntarily surrendered their lands. They constructed on their respective pieces of land the development plan roads at their own cost and as per the specifications stipulated in the relevant rules. This was in addition to the voluntary surrender. The dispute between the parties was limited to the question of extent of floor space index (FSI) or transferable development rights (TDR) for the roads constructed on the surrendered lands at the owners cost. The land owners claimed a certain FSI or TDR and relied upon para 6 of Appendix VII to the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991. The Municipal Corporation, however, relied on a circular issued on 9-4-1996 and restricted the additional TDR only to the extent of 15% of the road area. The argument of the petitioners was that the contents of this circular were merely in the nature of executive instructions and could not supersede or override the provisions of the DC Regulations which were legislative in nature.80. It is in such a controversy that the issue arose as to whether this was a correct understanding of the State and the Municipal Corporation, or whether the petitioners were right. Holding that the contentions of the petitioners are of substance, their case came to be accepted. The observations relied upon by Mr. Khambata cannot be read in isolation but must be read in the backdrop of this essential question or controversy. We do not see how then can the petitioners claim any relief based on this Judgment. This Judgment is, therefore, entirely distinguishable.81. We do not see how the other Judgments, and particularly that rendered in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited (supra), would assist the petitioners. The Pepsicos was a case where the doctrine of promissory estoppel was invoked so as to rely upon a concession/exemption/incentive/rebate in sales tax. The argument was that Pepsico has taken effective steps for acquiring or placing firm orders for the purchase of the necessary plant and machinery under the Notification dated 3-11-1993, issued under the industrial policy of the State of Kerala. Therefore, it was entitled to the relief in terms of the Notification, namely, exemption from sales tax for a certain period. Its entitlement was thus upheld and the State was prevented from denying the benefit of this exemption Notification to it. We have no such case before us.82. Equally, the other Judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation V/s. Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra) is distinguishable. It may be discussing the concept of TDR and that can be offered in lieu of cash compensation and the issue was whether the land in question was shown as reserved for garden in the layout plan. The acquisition of the land was initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and was completed in the year 1987 whereafter possession of the land was taken over on 19-2-1987. Thereafter, the Development Plan was sought to be prepared and published and in the draft of which the land was shown as an existing garden. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners claimed that their entitlement to TDR cannot be defeated by such an attempt and urged that the land was acquired under a non-developmental proposal and the same would not attract the provisions of the MRTP Act. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition by Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society Limited was allowed by the High Court and the appeal preferred from the Judgment of this Court was dismissed. This case is also distinguishable.83. We do not think that the other Judgments in the compilation are of any assistance to the petitioners.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]A perusal of this Notification leaves us in no manner of doubt that land admeasuring 58,197.97 square metres out of City Survey No.593 of Mazgaon Division, styled as the said land, may have been termed in this Notification to be owned by M/s. Mafatlal Industriesland is reserved for extension of VJB Udyan as per the proposals of the Development Plan of E Ward sanctioned by the Government onOn that land is located a cotton textile mill unit. This reservation continued after the term of the Development Plan of 1967 was over. In the earlier plan also, the land was reserved for extension to VJB Udyan, and in the revised Development Plan published under Section 26 of the MRTP Act and submitted to Government under Section 30 of the MRTP Act by the MCGM, the reservation was deleted from that land and it was placed in retention activity. However, while according sanction by the State Government to the revised Development Plan ofthe said land was kept reserved for the said purpose. The cotton textile mill was a running industry upto June, 2000, after which, taking into consideration the financial constraints faced by the company and the complete erosion of itsleading to closure of its activities, the unit of the said company was declared sick by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR for short) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.70. What is relevant and material for our purpose is that it is this textile unit/company which approached the Government with a proposal to commercially exploit its lands at Lower Parel and Mazgaon so as to generate funds and from these funds generated pursuant to the development of these lands, to partially revive the said mill and to pay its various dues. The company, therefore, requested that the reservation be deleted. It said that it intends to carry out development in accordance with Regulation 58 of the DCR, 1991, as modified in the year 2001.71. The entire issue was examined with reference to the possible development of the said land as per the proposals of the Development Plan visavis the revival scheme of the said mill as envisaged by the said company. The Government was of the view that after the revival scheme is approved by the BIFR, that will restore the viability of the said mill and also enable it to pay various dues, including labour dues. That would also help to some extent to protect the job of workers of the said mill. However, for this purpose it is necessary that the said land is released from the reservation and placed in retention activity.72. In these circumstances, after considering all the facts and related issues, the Government, in larger public interest, found it expedient to take necessary steps to promote the implementation of the revival package of the said company and for that purpose the Government found it expedient to delete the said reservation conditionally and placed the deleted land as retention activity after following the procedure laid down under Section 37 of the MRTP Act. In the Notification itself it is clarified that the deletion of the reservation would be conditional. It is necessary that a condition be imposed on the petitioners that after deletion, the land shall be developed scrupulously in accordance with the provisions contained in the modified Regulation 58 of the DCR, 1991, as also as per the package of measures, as may be approved by the BIFR in accordance with law. That is why the Government in exercise of the powers vested under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act, vide order of even number datedhad directed the MCGM to delete the said reservation from the said land and designated the said land so deleted as retention activity. The MCGM was therefore directed to comply with the requirements of Section 37 of the MRTP Act but it failed to publish the requisite notice within the stipulated period of 60 days. That is how the Government of Maharashtra relied upon its powers under Section 37(1A) of the MRTP Act and issued the notice datedregarding proposed modification, and thereby invited suggestions/objections from the general public within a period of one month from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette and it appointed the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai, as officer, to submit his report to the Government. That would be regarding the suggestions/objections that may be received after the expiry of the period stipulated in its notice. Thus, this notice was published in the Government Gazette onand prior thereto in two newspapers.A careful perusal of this Notification leaves us in no manner of doubt that total deletion of the reservation was not accepted. There was already a Zoo in existence and its extension was required in public interest. That was also necessary for carrying forward the purpose of the Development Plan. It is in these circumstances that the Government of Maharashtra decided to retain the reservation by extension to VJB Udyan but restricted it to the extent of 50% of the land. It decided to release the remaining land from this reservation so as to enable the company to develop the property in order to satisfy the dues of the workers and other dues. This Notification itself records the fact that the company has agreed to handover the reserved land on noncash compensation basis.75. The Government, therefore, exercised its powers under Section 37(2) of the MRTP Act and sanctioned the modification, subject to conditions. If one reads the operative part of this Notification and under the heading/title MODIFICATION, it is evident that the conditional modification cannot be read in the manner suggested by Mr. Khambata. If the conditions are perused in totality or read together and harmoniously, it is evident that had it not been for this partial deletion by the Government, the reservation on the said land would have continued. Thus, the entire land would then have continued under reservation for the public purpose of extension of VJB Udyan. It was then not possible to use the land or develop it for any other purpose, save and except the notified one. If the total deletion of the reservation was sought by the petitioners, but that was not agreed upon and even the partial deletion is conditional, then, the petitioners cannot pick one of the terms and conditions and read it in isolation or to their benefit. If this modification to the Development Plan had not been granted and in the form issued by the State Government, then, it was not possible for the petitioners to develop the land under Regulation 58 of the DCR, 1991 and to the extent of 50% as per this Notification. That it can be developed under this Regulation by styling the petitioners as owners is only to enable them to get the benefit or advantage of the DC Regulation 58. That is specifically inserted in the DC Regulations to enable obtaining of FSI which is attached to the lands in use and possession of textile units/mills in Greater Mumbai. It is only after partial release from the reservation in terms of the Development Plan, that the petitioners could have developed the land to the extent of 50% and as permitted above, and utilised the funds generated from the development of land so released from reservation primarily for adjustment of dues of workers and also for payment of its outstanding dues of financial institutions, as stipulated by the BIFR. Thus, to implement and execute so also enforce the BIFR revival scheme, that this modification in the Development Plan has been made. The condition is to recommence the spinning activity of 10,000 spindles, as stipulated in the BIFR scheme.76. The basic premise on which Mr. Khambatas arguments are canvassed is fallacious and incorrect. The subject Notification is not the one acquiring the private property for public purpose under the sovereign power founded on the right of eminent domain vesting in the State. The subject Notification, as held above, is for effecting a major modification in the sanctioned Development Plan by exercising a statutory power conferred vide Section 37 of the MRTP Act, 1966. That modification is sanctioned conditionally. This is not to be confused with a power to acquire some interest in the land. The land to the extent released is the consideration based on which the rest of the land already under lease with the petitioners can be developed or redeveloped to the fullest by reaping the fruits of D.C. Regulation 58. That allows a land leased for industrial purpose to a textile mill to be redeveloped in terms thereof so that its potential in the market can be exploited to the maximum. It was not possible unless the reservation for public purpose is deleted. For deletion of that alone, partially, the subject Notification is issued. The ownership of the land admittedly vests in the State. The State is not required to acquire its own land. It cannot take recourse to the power of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the law now prevailing enabling acquisition of a private land or any interestis not the situation before us at all. The condition based on which the balance of 50% of the land released from reservation could have been developed in terms of the BIFR scheme is that the rest of it continues under reservation for extension of VJB Udyan and to that extent the land, as demarcated, would have to be handed over free of encumbrances on noncash compensation terms to the MCGM, then, it is evident that there is no question of any compensation to be awarded either way. Meaning thereby, either in cash or noncash basis. There is nothing emerging from this Notification which the petitioners can seek, much less as of right from the MCGM. The whole petition to this extent is misconceived. It is as if the petitioners claim to be absolute owners of the land and that they are being deprived of its use, enjoyment and benefits because of the surrender thereof in part for use by the MCGM that they should be compensated, is the foundation of the petitioners case. That foundation itself has no legal support. The petitioners are neither absolute owners nor they have such right as they can seek to enforce against the MCGM. They are not deprived of their property or kept out of its enjoyment by a procedure unknown to law. This is, therefore, not a case where a person is being deprived of his property, save by authority of law. All those cases in which a person is deprived of his property, save by authority of law, are clear. In those cases, the State Government or the Planning Authority by a mere designation or reservation of lands for a public purpose, but without acquiring them in accordance with law, deprive the owners thereof of their rights, that this principle would come into play. This is enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In that event, even the guarantee of equality flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India is breached and violated. This is not a case of that nature. This is a case where the requirement of the land for a predesignated public purpose is fulfilled by balancing the rights and equities of the petitioners as lessees of Government land or public properties. Pertinently, the petitioners are not challenging the power of the State Government to make a conditional modification in the Development Plan or proposal. The power flowing from the substantive provisions of the MRTP Act can be exercised unconditionally or by imposing terms and conditions consistent with the object and purpose of the MRTP Act. Even the conditions of the Notifications are not challenged. It is but a reading and construction thereof to their advantage which is attempted by the petitioners in this petition. Once we find that such an attempt cannot succeed, then, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, particularly in terms of the prayers set out hereinabove.77. None of the decisions cited by Mr. Khambata would assist the petitioners.78. In those decisions, the controversy was entirely different. The ambit and scope of powers conferred by Section 37 of the MRTP Act was in issue in Pune Municipal Corporation V/s. Promoters and Builders Association (supra). The principle of estoppel and particularly promissory estoppel was pressed into service but even that attempt was not successful because the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against statutes. The backdrop in which all these issues arose for determination and consideration are totally different and distinct. The question was whether the State Government can make any changes on its own in the modifications submitted by the Planning Authority or not. It is answering that issue in favour of the Pune Municipal Corporation and rejecting all the arguments to the contrary that this Judgment was rendered. Far from assisting the petitioners before us, some of the observations in this Judgment would militate against the contentions of Mr.observations relied upon by Mr. Khambata cannot be read in isolation but must be read in the backdrop of this essential question or controversy. We do not see how then can the petitioners claim any relief based on this Judgment. This Judgment is, therefore, entirely distinguishable.81. We do not see how the other Judgments, and particularly that rendered in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited (supra), would assist the petitioners. The Pepsicos was a case where the doctrine of promissory estoppel was invoked so as to rely upon a concession/exemption/incentive/rebate in sales tax. The argument was that Pepsico has taken effective steps for acquiring or placing firm orders for the purchase of the necessary plant and machinery under the Notification datedissued under the industrial policy of the State of Kerala. Therefore, it was entitled to the relief in terms of the Notification, namely, exemption from sales tax for a certain period. Its entitlement was thus upheld and the State was prevented from denying the benefit of this exemption Notification to it. We have no such case before us.82. Equally, the other Judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation V/s. Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra) iscase is also distinguishable.83. We do not think that the other Judgments in the compilation are of any assistance to the petitioners.