Important Point—The Principles of Natural Justice must be followed in all proceedings otherwise it amount to denial of justice.

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners who are a firm carrying on business of development and redevelopment of properties have approached this Court pointing out that there was a lease deed executed on 14th April, 1910 by the then British Government. A lease of a certain property more particularly described in paragraph 2 of the Petition was granted in favour of one Aga Shamsudin Shah. That was for a period of 99 years commencing from 1st September, 1903. The Petitioners have stepped in as lessee. In respect of this property, pursuant to a deed of assignment executed on 13th September, 2006, the Petitioners are relying upon a certain clause in the lease deed which enables transfer of the rights in favour of third parties. Thus, the reversionary rights could be transferred and equally the transferee is free to apply for renewal of the deed for a further period. Relying on this clause, it is submitted that a request was made in writing to renew the lease. The argument is that the Collector, who is the successor in interest of the then Government is obliged to renew the lease. In the same breath, what is being argued is that there was a Civil Suit filed praying for a declaration to the above effect. It is in these circumstances the rights of the erstwhile lessee and flowing in favour of the Petitioners are being enforced. The Petitioners also sought to register the document by which they stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile lessee. It is stated that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 refused to register the instrument/document of assignment and demanded a sum of Rs.9,66,27,928.50 towards unearned income on the ground that the said assignment was made without prior permission of the Respondents.

3. Dr. Sathe, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the urgency in the matter is that though the direction to pay the unearned income was challenged before the Minister of Revenue, the Government of Maharashtra who passed an order on 6th September, 2007, directed renewal of the lease on execution of the indemnity bond and deed of guarantee. What has transpired thereafter, according to him, ought to shock the judicial conscience of this Court. There was no direction to initiate any coercive measures in the order of the Minister of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra. On the other hand, the Petitioners could have proceeded to enforce their rights under the lease deed. They desired to demolish the old structures standing on the land and construct a new building by which they would re-house the existing occupants and after discharging such an obligation exploit the potential of the land in the market. That is how they proceeded and obtained the requisite permissions and approvals so also sanctions from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. It was thereafter that they started to pursue their request for renewal of the lease. They have completed the construction of the building. They have re-housed 206 residential tenants and 39 non-residential tenants. Though this project is on going, the second Respondent directed the registration office not to register the documents brought by the Petitioners for registration. The Petitioners pointed out their difficulties when they objected to such a stand of Respondent No. 2 - Collector. Dr. Sathe has invited our attention to the Communications, copies of which are annexed to the Writ Petition and points out that instead of registering the documents as prayed so as to enable the flat purchasers/unit holders to obtain the documents of title, the second Respondent granted a conditional permission but on the footing that the Petitioners submit to her demand of payment of unearned income to the extent of Rs.16.50 Crores.

4. Mr. Sathe, therefore, submits that the Petitioners had to bring to this Court's notice that such linkin