JUDGMENT :

GS Patel, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 20th September 2022, the Petitioner, Prabhat Sadan Properties Private Limited (“Prabhat Sadan”) assails a demand raised by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) in the amount of Rs 72,94,268/- towards what is called “transfer premium”.

3. The one point that is not contentious is that under the same head of a transfer premium, the MCGM had previously demanded an amount of Rs 24,71,300/-, which the Petitioner admittedly paid. We say this at the forefront because Mr Jagtiani for the Petitioner said, albeit en passant, that even this amount ought not to have been demanded. Wisely, he did not press the point further given that there has never been a protest in that regard, nor is there even now a demand or a prayer for a refund of this amount. But he does use the fact of the previous demand, its payment and its receipt or acknowledgement, all admitted, and all without qualification or reservation of any kind — not on a without prejudice or subject to any further demand — to say that, as a matter of law, no principle governing administration permits a public authority to constantly revisit decisions made, acted on and concluded. We will consider this argument in greater detail a little later.

4. The facts arise this way. The property in question is a tract of land at Byculla, City Survey No. 1902, Plot Nos. 109 and 120, Agripada (West) Estate. It is of about 1746 sq mts and is at the junction of Lamington Road and Gell Street. The two demand notices under challenge are of 13th January 2022 and 31st May 2022. They were raised by the 3rd Respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Estates) of the MCGM. The demand was for Rs 72,94,268/- and interest at 12% per annum from 14th August 2012 until payment or realisation.

5. What Prabhat Sadan seeks, therefore, is a certiorari to quash these demand notices.

6. There is no dispute that the MCGM is the owner of the property. The rest of this discussion, therefore, deals not with transfers or movements of ownership title to the property, but is entirely about the transfer of leasehold rights. The first such lease transaction is very old, of 20th November 1938 when one Ismail Baig Mohammed Charitable Trust took the property and become what is called “the sub-lessor in perpetuity”. About three decades later, on 28th April 1969, one Manmohan Singh Bedi and four others (“the Bedis”) became entitled to the leasehold rights in the property.

7. Then comes the first pivotal date of 8th April 1988. It is on this date that Prabhat Sadan executed what it called a conveyance’ with the Bedis to take the leasehold rights. Prabhat Sadan says it became entitled to the leasehold rights for this property on this date. The document in question, the so-called ‘conveyance’ (or the document styled as such) was lodged for registration with the Sub- Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai (then Bombay) in 1988 itself. There followed an Index II entry of 8th April 1988 reflecting this document.

8. The document lay in that state — lodged for registration — because Prabhat Sadan was then in quest of a no objection certificate (“NOC”) under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (“ULC Act”) from the Additional Collector and Competent Authority under the ULC Act. That NOC came only on 27th March 2006. A copy of this is at Exhibit “D” at page 75. It is in favour of the Bedis from whom Prabhat Sadan took the lease.

9. It was following this NOC — and this is the second pivotal date — that, on 27th October 2006, the so called ‘conveyance’ in favour of Prabhat Sadan from the Bedis was registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

10. These two dates of 8th April 1988 and 27th October 2006 are singularly important to the rest of this discussion. It is one of these t