Case: Uttar Bhartiya Rajak Samaj Panchayat Banganga Rajak Samaj Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) &amp; Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary &amp; Ors.

3. In the aforesaid writ petition filed before the High Court, the appellants have challenged an order of the High Power Committee (HPC) dated 19 th December 2009 by which, the demand made by the 2 nd respondent Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) demanding premium ofan amount of Rs.8,47,69,029.69 (Rupees Eight Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty Nine Paise only), is confirmed in respect of Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 05 th January 2005, issued in their favour for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The appellants also sought directions to direct the SRA to issue Commencement Certificate as per the existing guidelines4. The appellant no.1 is the registered society of slum dwellers, who are stated to be residing on plot bearing no.CS No.51, 2/51, 3/51 of Malabar Hill and Cumballa Hill Div. at Bhagwan Indrajit Road, Mumbai. The appellant no.2 is a rehabilitator who was approached by the 1 st appellant-society to develop the said plot and rehabilitate its members under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, under Maharashtra Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1976. On the proposal for the aforesaid scheme, a LOI bearing no.SRA/Eng/875/D/GL/LOI dated 05.01.2005 has been issued by the 2 nd respondent-authority in favour of the 2 nd appellant to carry out the said rehabilitation. Since the said plot was within the area of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), the said LOI was issued subject to clearance by CRZ authorities as provided under Clause 46, by the 1 st respondent and Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA)5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Coastal Zone Management Authority, 1 st respondent-Government issued notification dated 16.04.2008. The Government of Maharashtra has issued directives under Section 37(1) and Section 154 of the MaharashtraRegional & Town Planning Act. As per the above said directives issued by the Government, developer/co-operative society is required to pay premium @ 25% in terms of the Ready Reckoner in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme proposed to be undertaken on the lands owned by the Government, Semi-Government Undertakings and local bodies. In view of the said notification issued by the Government, the appellants were demanded an amount of Rs.8,47,69,029.69 (Rupees Eight Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty Nine Paise only) towards the premium6. Questioning the letter of demand issued by the 2 nd respondent for the aforesaid sum, the appellants have approached the HPC. Even the HPC has considered the issue and rejected the claim of the appellants that they are not required to pay the premium amount as much as they were already issued LOI dated 05.01.2005. Questioning the demand of Rs.8,47,69,029.69 and further order issued by the HPC, the appellants have approached the High Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.1902 of 2010. The above writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.05.2012 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the review petition filed by the appellants has also ended in dismissal by order dated 01.07.2015.

Court's reasoning:
11. In this case it is to be noted that the Letter of Intent was valid for a period of three months only. If, for any reason, delay is occurred in obtaining clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority, nothing prevented the appellants to make appropriate representation so as to keep the Letter of Intent alive. When the validity of Letter of Intent itself is for three months and if the same is not kept alive, we are of the view that the premium is to be paid as per the Government Resolution dated 16.04.2008. By virtue of the aforesaid notification, developer/co- operative society is required to pay premium @ 25% in terms of the Ready Reckoner, in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes proposedto be undertaken on the lands owned by the Government, Semi- Government Undertakings and local bodies12. In that view of the matter the demand made by the respondents is in conformity with the law and we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the High Court in either dismissing the writ petition or the review petition.