A person is not entitled to claim compensation for land that is partially de-reserved for a public purpose and the balance land is to be handed over to the Corporation free of encumbrances on non-cash compensation terms.

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. It is agreed that majority of the prayers in the writ petition stand answered in terms of the Judgment of this Court in O.S. Writ Petition (L) No. 122 of 2018 with Notice of Motion No. 45 of 2018 (Hindustan Unilever Limited & Another v/s. State of Maharashtra & Others), decided on 3-5-2018. The surviving issue then remains about the interpretation of Government of Maharashtra Notification dated 10-2-2004, copy of which is at Exhibit-G to the petition, at page 120 thereof. It is that issue which will be dealt with by this Judgment.

3. The prayers in relation thereto, as amended, read as under:-

“(b-iii) order and direct Respondent Nos.2 and 5 to act in accordance with the Notification dated 10th February 2004 (Exhibit 'G' hereto); act in accordance with the statements made before this Hon'ble Court in PIL Writ Petition No. 660 of 2004; and in view thereof, grant the Petitioners non-cash compensation (in terms of Development Rights Certificate) in accordance with the Petitioners' entitlement under the Notification dated 10th February 2004 and the Development Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai (as amended);

c (i) to (iv) …. …. ….

(v) stay the effect, implementation and operation of the impugned Panchnama and the impugned receipt dated 7th January 2017/7th January, 2016 (being Exhibits 'EE' and 'JJ' hereto);

(vi) restrain and prohibit Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent No.5, their respective servants, officers and/or agents from in any manner (directly and/or indirectly) acting upon in furtherance and/or otherwise taking any action upon and in relation to the impugned Panchnama and the impugned receipt dated 7th January 2017/7th January 2016 (being Exhibits 'EE' and 'JJ' hereto);

(vii) restrain and prohibit Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent No.5 from in any manner (directly or indirectly) disturbing and/or interfering with the Petitioners' possession of the MCGM land (Petition: Exhibit 'F');”

4. For appreciating the issue in relation to these prayers, we would have to refer to certain background facts.

5. The list of dates, as tendered by Mr. Khambata, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, refers to two Indentures of Lease under which the State granted the lease of the lands.

6. Under the Indentures of Lease dated 14-5-1921 (Exhibit-B, page 85) and 13-10-1923 (Exhibit-C, page 98), the State Government granted lease of lands aggregating to 70,361.20 square metres to petitioner No.1/Mafatlal’s predecessors for an initial period of 99 years with an entitlement to a new lease for a further term of 99 years with the same covenant and provision (including the covenant for renewal). These are, therefore, perpetual leases.

7. In the year 1967, under the then Development Plan, 58,197.97 square metres of land was reserved for the purpose of extension to Veermata Jijabai Bhosale Udyan & Zoo (“VJB Udyan” for short).

8. By its Notification dated 10-2-2004 (Exhibit-G, page 120) (“2004 Notification” for short), the Urban Development Department of the State of Maharashtra inter alia released 50% of the land from reservation and making it available to Mafatlal for development under D.C. Regulation 58. This land admeasures 30,910.15 square metres and is “the subject land” (Exhibit-E, page 117). As regards the balance land, it continued under reservation (for extension of the Zoo) and under the 2004 Notification Mafatlal is to surrender the same to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM” for short). This land is “the MCGM land” (Exhibit-F, page 118).

9. In March, 2004, Janhit Manch & others filed PIL Writ Petition No. 660 of 2004 inter alia challenging the 2004 Notification and the release of the subject land from reservation and the same becoming available to Mafatlal for development.

10. On 15-6-2004, Mafatlal made an application under Section 302 of the Brih