P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.

1. The petitioner is occupying land admeasuring 10.264 acres located in the Colaba area of the city of Mumbai. The petitioner is occupying the said land as a lessee by virtue of the leasehold rights. The petitioner obtained leasehold rights by virtue of an Indenture of Assignment dated 6th August, 1979 executed between one Tungabhadra Sugar Works and the petitioner. By virtue of the same, the petitioner is occupying the said piece of land and is entitled to use the aforesaid property. The ownership rights in respect of the said property are duly reflected in the PR cards. In order to carry out development work, the petitioner took steps for clearing the dues of the workmen of the mill standing on the said property i.e. Mukesh Mills. According to the petitioner, they incurred about Rs. 17 crores in this behalf.

2. In order to obtain development permission, the petitioner carried out certain search and they came to know that Respondent No.2, Union of India, is asserting its rights over the property. The petitioner, in the meanwhile also came across a newspaper article published by Respondent No.2 in the Times of India dated 2nd December, 2004, stating that the said property was being acquired for constructing helipad for civilian flights. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2, therefore, wanted to acquire the said piece of land for the purpose of constructing helipad and for expanding its naval base. In connection with the development permission sought for by the petitioner from the Municipal Corporation of greater Mumbai, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No. 1 pointing out that the said property is part of defence land and is on lease to the erstwhile Colaba Land & Mill Company. The Respondent No.2, therefore, asked respondent No.1 not to grant development permission regarding construction over the said piece of land. In the meanwhile, correspondence ensued between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 tried to assert its title over the suit property in view of certain articles in the newspapers. In the meanwhile, the petitioner sent a letter dated 5th September, 2006 to respondent No.1 seeking approval/permission in respect of the development of the said property. The Respondent No.1Corporation informed the petitioner that development permission is refused on the ground that as per letter dated 27th July, 2006, no permission to develop the said property be given without obtaining NOC from respondent No.2. Since respondent No.1 refused to grant development permission to the petitioner on that ground that unless no objection certificate from respondent No.2 is obtained, more particularly from the Indian Navy, development permission cannot be granted. It is the foresaid decision of the Corporation in not granting development permission to the petitioner that the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the said action. The petitioner has prayed that appropriate writ, order or direction be issued calling for the records pertaining to the property in question and to set aside the decision of the Corporation in refusing development permission by its letter dated 22nd September, 2006 in connection with the proposed development of the said property which the petitioner intended to do. The petitioner also prayed for issuance of a Fresh Survey Section (City) Report by Respondent No.1 in respect of the said property. The petitioner further prayed for issuing appropriate writ or order directing Respondent No.2 to refrain from making any claims in respect of the said property and/or interfering with/obstructing/preventing the petitioner from developing the said property.

3. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not pressing prayer clauses (b) as well as (d) as this Court cannot decide disputed questions of title in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutio