G.S. Patel, J.

1. By this Court’s order of 20th August 2013, parties were put to notice that the Petition would be heard finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule. On the Respondents waiving service, by consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing.

2. Towards the southern end of the Island City of Mumbai, just off Colaba Causeway and at the end of a narrow lane, Narayan Sawant Marg, there lies a very large property. To its east is Mumbai’s harbour; to the south, Sassoon Dock. A Naval establishment, INS Shikra, abuts the property on its north and north-east; and, to the west is a developed area that includes several residential buildings, a municipal school, a Naval boat workshop, the Colaba Fire Station and, beyond, Colaba Causeway.

3. This land, City Survey Nos. 18/69, 19/69 and 128 of the Colaba Division, belongs to the 1st Petitioner (“TCI”). It covers 39,276 sq mts, just under 10 acres. There are several structures on it, most of them now abandoned. Once, this was one of Mumbai’s many fabled cotton textile mills. It is known as Mukesh Mills. Most of the others are concentrated in Central Mumbai. This is the only one in South Mumbai. It is also claimed to be the only one in what is called the CRZ-II Zone; and, as we shall see, it is this zoning that is said to set it apart (Indu Mill, United Mill Unit No.6 off Veer Savarkar Marg at Prabha Devi, is also on the shoreline, on the city’s west coast).

4. On 18th January 1982, the workmen of Mumbai’s cotton textile mills went on a strike. That strike lasted for a year. It resulted in the closure of most, if not all, of the city’s textile mills. Mukesh Mills was one of these. It ceased functioning on the day the strike began. Later that year, in September, TCI applied for closure of the mill. The State Government opposed this application, and it was not till this Court’s orders of 8th April 2003 and 25th April 2003 that closure was finally permitted. The Petitioners claim that by that time, the dues of all their workmen had been settled except for the claims of the relatives or heirs of six former mill workers. By 2004, therefore, there remained only the land and structures of the former mill.

5. Between 1982 and 2003/2004, the statutory and legislative regime governing town planning in Mumbai had undergone, so to speak, a sea change. Town and Country Planning in Maharashtra is governed by the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the MRTP Act”). That Act requires, inter alia, the designated planning authority — in this case, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) — to prepare a draft Development Plan (Section 21). This is to be sanctioned by the State Government following a statutorily mandated procedure. A development plan must be revised every 20 years (Section 38). Till 1991, development in Mumbai was controlled by the Development Control Rules, 1967 (“the 1967 DC Rules”). The MCGM undertook a revision as required by the MRTP Act and published, for suggestions and objections, revised draft development control regulations in 1989. These were then taken through the statutory procedure for finalisation. On 20th February 1991, the revised Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai (“the 1991 DCRs”) were notified, to come into effect on 25th March 1991 (Notification No. DCR.1090/RPD/UD-11 dated 20th February 1991). The 1991 DCRs contained, for the first time, special provisions in Regulation 58 (“DCR 58”) regulating, controlling and governing future development on the cotton textile mill lands. This DCR 58 was amended on 20th March 2001, following which many privately owned mills have made proposals for development and redevelopment. We will return to the 1991 DCRs, the MRTP Act and DCR 58 presently; for the moment, we note only the date when they came into force.

6. In the meantime, the Central Government’s Ministry of Environment & Forests (“MOEF”) issued the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 1991 (“the 19