M.L. PENDSE, J. :---Appeal admitted. Government Pleader on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Singhvi on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, and Mrs. Mody on behalf of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 waive service. By consent, appeal taken on board and called out for hearing.

The unfurling of facts of this appeal indicates to what extent powerful builder can manipulate to throw to the winds all rules and regulations in respect of development of properties in city of Bombay. The facts which are to be set out hereinafter make extremely sad reading and reflect how the appellants misused the officers of both the collectors office and Municipal Corporation Office to achieve their nefarious objects.

2. Appellant No. 2 is Director and shareholder of appellant No. 1 a private limited company carrying on business of real estate, development and of construction of multi-storeyed buildings in city of Bombay. On June 12, 1978, appellant No. 2 entered into agreement with Bomi Dubash who was owner of plot bearing City Survey  No. 565 of Malbar Hill and Cumbala Hill Division for sale of plot for the purpose of development. The title deeds of City Survey No. 565 establish that the area was 3143 sq. metres. On the southern side of City Survey No. 565 is land bearing City Survey No. 438 and which covers area of 2,31,229.24 sq metres. Plot No. 438 is held by Parsi Panchayat right from year 1904 onwards and is known as Tower of Silence where the final rites of members of Parsi Community are performed. The area covered by Plot No. 439 being a cemetery, construction is not permitted on any portion of this plot.

On October 2, 1978, the appellants submitted plans to Bombay Municipal Corporation for construction of building consisting of ground and six floors on Plot bearing City Survey No. 565. The area mentioned in the plans was 3760 sq. yards and extract of city survey number submitted with the plans also indicates that the area of plot was only 3760 sq. yards. On December 23, 1978, on the basis of the plans submitted by the appellants, the Bombay Municipal Corporation sanctioned the plans and issued I.O.D. (Intimation Of Development). On August 24, 1979, R.C. Chawla, Architect on behalf of the appellants, submitted amended plans which also indicate that the area of City Survey No. 565 was only 3760 sq. yards. On September 16, 1979, the appellants applied to the Superintendent of land records for demarcation and measurement of the plot and on November 28, 1979, Bombay Municipal Corporation granted commencement certificate in respect of shops to be built on the ground floor. The certificate of commencement of the work for entire building was issued on February 3, 1981.

3. On May 16, 1981, P.D. Hawal, who was working as Superintendent in the Office of the city survey record, addressed letter to the appellants informing that on taking measurements, it was noticed that City Survey No. 565 admeasures 3615 sq. metres. On the strength of the letter and the certificate issued by P.D, Hawal, the appellants submitted amended plans to Bombay Municipal Corporation on September 28, 1981. The appellants claimed that the area of the plot was 3615.32 sq. metres and an error was committed earlier by indicating that the plot admeasures only 3143.34 sq. metres. The appellants sought sanction to the amended plans for construction of building comprising basement, ground floor and 8 upper floors. Curiously enough, within 5 days of submission of amended plans on October 3, 1981, Bombay Municipal Corporation sanctioned amended plans to enable the appellants to avail of F.S.I. (Floor Space Index) on the basis that the plot admeasures 3615.32 sq. metres. The appellants thereby secured additional F.S.I. on 564 sq. yards and additional built up area of 6750 sq. feet.

It is required to be stated at this juncture that it was subsequently discovered that P.D. Hawal working as Superintendent, City Survey Record, was involved in huge racket of forging the docum