JUDGMENT - V.P. TIPNIS, J.:---By way of this writ petition, the Assessment Order Nos. 139 and 613 dated 14-6-1995 and 6-8-1996, as also the order of the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development passed in the appeal on 3-1-1997, are impugned.

2.The respondent-CIDCO is a Development Authority for the purposes of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short, the M.R. T.P. Act) in respect of an area under its jurisdiction. On 8-7-1991, the petitioner applied to the CIDCO for development permission in respect of Survey Nos. 259 to 267, 269 to 271, 273, and 276 to 279 under section 44 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. By letter dated 30-8-1991, the C.I.D.C.O. informed the petitioner that the development permission, as requested, is refused under section 41(i) and (iii) of the M.R.T.P. Act. The reasons given were that: (1) the Development Plan for the area under reference was not ready, (2) the existing infrastructural facilities are inadequate and (3) water supply scheme has not been submitted by the applicant. It was also mentioned in the last para that the applicant's case be processed further only after compliance of the above.

3.By letter dated 12-7-1992 addressed to the C.I.D.C.O. by the petitioner, it was pointed out that the High Court, by its interim order, mentioned that the C.I.D.C.O. should give development permission as per the B.M.R. Plan Report, 1973 with 1.5 km. distance from railway station on western railway and along with the existing road, and since the scheme is within 1.5 km. distance and along with the existing road, the first objection should not be raised. Regarding inadequate infrastructure facilities, it was mentioned that the fresh plans with necessary infrastructure according to the D.C. Rules are provided and revised plans are submitted. Further it was mentioned that for the water supply scheme, the report is submitted along with the letter. In the last para, it was requested that by fulfilling the queries mentioned in the letter under reference, the petitioner requested the C.I.D.C.O. to grant development permission for the aforesaid plans.

4.It requires to be stated that to the aforesaid letter dated 12-7-1992, the CIDCO sent a reply dated 6-8-1992 to the petitioner mentioning that the water scheme proposed by the petitioner for the said project requires certification (approval) from the G.S.D.A. in respect of quality and quantity of potable water. On 10-8-1992, the amendments were carried out to the M.R.T.P. Act and Chapter VI-A was added. Subsequently, by different letters in the years 1993 and 1994, the C.I.D.C.O. was informed about the change of Architect and structural Engineers. On 12-4-1994, the petitioner made fresh application for permission for much larger area including the area which was the subject matter of earlier application. Along with the said application, the petitioner also gave an undertaking to pay development charges and submit certificate from G.S.D.A. On 29-4-1994, the petitioner submitted certificate of G.S.D.A. which certificate is dated 15-2-1994. On 26-5-1994, the commencement certificate was granted to the petitioner. On 14-6-1995, the petitioner applied for sanction to amended layout which was duly sanctioned. On 14-6-1995 the first Assessment order of development charges bearing Order No. 139 was passed. By letter dated 29-7-1996, the petitioner asked for instalments to pay development charges. On 6-8-1996, the second Assessment Order No. 613 was passed under which the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1.06,83,295-00 towards development charges for both residential and commercial users in instalments mentioned therein. The petitioner challenged these orders by filing Writ Petition No. 6144 of 1996. However, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal as provided by the Act. By order dated 22-9-1997, the Minister concerned who is the appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Hence this petition.

5.Shri Chi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document