The main legal point established in the judgment is that a public body, such as the MMRDA, has the right to resume possession of allotted land if the allottee fails to utilize the land and comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement to lease.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging an order dated 17th August, 2012 by which the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (for short MMRDA) has forfeited the licence agreement and resumed possession of the premises from the date of issuance of the order.

2. The facts necessary to appreciate the challenge to this order are briefly these. The respondent no.6 to this writ petition, namely, the State of Maharashtra has allotted 61.51 hectare of land at Wadala, Mumbai to the MMRDA for use as a truck terminal. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation (respondent no.5) sanctioned the lay out and in this lay out are, what is subject matter of this writ petition, namely plots K-1, K-2 and K-3.

3. The MMRDA offered to the petitioner no.1 of this writ petition which is an association, the plots including K-1, K-2 and K-3 for 30 years. Annexure H and I to this writ petition evidence this offer. The plots were demarcated and possession was handed over on 2nd September, 1998. The MMRDA informed the petitioner no.1 that pursuant to the State Government extending a lease in favour of MMRDA for 99 years, the benefit of the same would be passed on to the parties like petitioner no.1. It is then urged that despite the possession being handed over, the construction could not commence because the plans in that behalf were not approved by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. There is a resolution of the MMRDA dated 13th September, 2005 managing delays in processing and, therefore, the period of construction was extended for three years till 2008. In February, 2007 the MMRDA was appointed as a Special Planning Authority for Wadala Truck Terminal Area. The MMRDA demanded payment of development charges, inter alia, for plots K-1, K-2 and K-3. It appears that the petitioners applied for Commencement Certificate regarding construction on these plots in 2008-09. The petitioners pointed out that they did not receive any Commencement Certificate. The letters were issued by MMRDA demanding penalty for delayed constructions of the plots excluding K-1, K-2 and K-3. The MMRDA purported to refund the development charges received for Plot K-1. The petitioners refusing to accept this refund insisted that the Commencement Certificate be issued. There were some queries on which answers were sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and what then the petitioners are alleging is that for the first time in September, 2011 the MMRDA informed the petitioners of its intended proposal to resume these plots. The petitioners filed writ petitions in this Court requiring the MMRDA to process and grant the Commencement Certificate. These were for distinct plots. However, as far as those plots were concerned, the Court directed MMRDA to furnish the list of deficiencies/compliances required for sanctioning the plans and the petitioners were required to complete the compliance thereof within a week and the MMRDA was to take a decision accordingly. The case of the petitioners is that through their Architect they complied with all these deficiencies/compliances but instead of the Commencement Certificate being issued, what the petitioners are aggrieved by is a notice for resumption of plots K-1, K-2 and K-3 on the ground that petitioners had failed to submit their construction proposal so also failed to commence and complete construction. The MMRDA addressed a letter and pointed out that it has already issued a show-cause notice for resumption and, therefore, all proposals of the petitioners were rejected. There was correspondence on this issue but since no reply was given insofar as compliance nor were the plans sanctioned that the petitioners filed a second writ petition in this Court and reliance is placed upon an order passed in that writ petition at page-86 of the paper-book. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the order passed on 17th August, 2012 resuming the plots K-