JUDGMENT :

1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging a notice dated 9th March 2018. The circumstances which this notice has been issued would have to be set out to appreciate the challenge.

2. The notice informs the Petitioner that there is a certain property and situate within the municipal limits of the Solapur Municipal Corporation. The Solapur Municipal Corporation was constrained to address this notice for the Petitioner has made extensive unauthorised and illegal construction. The Municipal Corporation has informed the Petitioner that this construction is not only unauthorised but illegal from the inception. The reason why these two words are frequently used in this notice are that no permission, much less any permission as contemplated by Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 ("MRTP Act"), was ever taken. In fact, from the inception the Municipal Corporation has been directing the Petitioner to bring down this construction. A notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act was issued way back on 17th February 2017. The response to that was also considered. The response to that was that an application within the meaning of sub-Section 3 of Section 53 with a request to permit retention of the works carried out at site.

3. Since such application has to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the parameters laid down by the very statue for grant of development permission that request was refused.

4. The Writ Petition presumes that the construction is capable of being regularised. The Petitioner presumes that because there is a non-payment of development charges of Rs. 8 crores with interest, amounting in all to about Rs. 9.50 crores approximately, that the Municipal Corporation intends to bring down or demolish this construction. If the payment is made then there is no possibility of such demolition, and that everything illegal and without permission will be condoned, accepted or 'regularised'. Then all notices to bring down this building or demolish this unauthorised and illegal construction would not survive.

5. Thus the Petitioner raises a challenge on the basis that the demand of Rs. 8 crores is not commensurate with the wrong committed at site. In other words, this should be in consonance with the alleged illegality committed in the construction activity. The contention is that there is no such nexus or connection and therefore the demand is exorbitant and illegal.

6. We do not understand this Writ Petition to be a Petition raising any challenge to the notices in relation to the construction carried out at site. The Writ Petition proceeds on the footing that there was a layout plan approved by letter dated 18th August 2009. That was for a partial development and later on a layout plan for the whole land was also approved by the 1st Respondent, the Municipal Corporation. The building permission was granted under Section 253 of the then Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act vide letter dated 7th January 2010. As the building permission was granted subject to Petitioner obtaining non-agricultural permission, that permission was sought for by making an application to the competent authority. That application was received but there was no response to the same. Subsequently a layout plan for staff quarters and a school building was approved on 1st July 2011. The Petitioner thereafter submitted proposals for building permission on 7th July 2011 which were received by the 1st Respondent on the same date after payment of appropriate scrutiny fees. However the 1st Respondent did not consider this layout plan and hence the Petitioner proceeded on the footing that beyond the period specified in the provision there is no authorisation in the law to consider that application and the permission sought vide that application is deemed to have been