JUDGMENT :

S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

1. Rule.

Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. All these Writ Petitions are based on similar set of facts and assail the same communication dated 2nd December, 2021 issued by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District thereby instructing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai not to grant building permissions in respect of lands granted on B-1 tenure under Form HH under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921, unless confirmation has been received by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District that the applicant for such permission has deposited conversion premium for converting landholding from B-1 tenure to C tenure as per the Government Notification dated 3rd August, 2019.

3. The vast pieces of government land at village Chembur were converted into SS-III by the respondent no. 1 pursuant to which, individual plots were carved out as part of the said scheme and granted to the purchasers/grantees on certain terms and conditions. One M/s. F.E. Dinshaw was entitled to various plots of land. Dinshaw's rights over the said property came to be assigned in favour of Provident Investment Company of Bombay under a Deed of Assignment dated 28th February, 1935. Mutation Entry was effectuated in the name of Provident Investment Company under kabjedar column in the Revenue record. Respondent No. 1 with a view to settle the land revenue and preservation of proprietary and other rights, pursuant to requisite survey of the said property as per the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, executed an agreement under the Form HH and Rule 43 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules 1921, dated 13th January, 1940, with Provident Investment Company, Bombay. On 18th July, 1940, permission was given to the Provident Investment Company to occupy the said property in accordance with the terms of the agreement in Form HH i.e. 13th July, 1940. On 4th September, 1952, under the Deed of Conveyance executed between Provident Investment Company and one Sitaram Joshi, the said Joshi had acquired various plots. The said acquisition was recorded by the revenue authority by way of mutation entry no. 807 dated 8th December, 1953. Writ Property changed hands. The same was transferred in the name of Manoramabai Godbole by Joshi and eventually, Manoramabai Godbole under Deed of Conveyance dated 15th October, 1956 sold it to one Sumatibai Bhagwantiprasad, who erected a building on the writ property. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 claim to be the legal heirs of deceased Bhagvanti Prasad. It appears that petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 executed a registered development agreement on 30th June, 2005 with the petitioner no. 5 for redevelopment of the writ property. They also executed power of attorney in favour of petitioner no. 5. In the year 2008 building was declared as dilapidated.

4. On or about 19th August, 2021, the respondent no. 5 granted IOD under section 346 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 on the terms and conditions enumerated therein. Amended plans for approval were submitted on 25th December, 2021. On 13th January, 2022, the respondent no. 2 issued amended plan approval letter and insisted upon the conditions of obtaining an NOC from the Collector. The said condition is imposed on the basis of communication dated 2nd December, 2021 by respondent no. 2 thereby directing respondent no. 5, not to grant building permissions in respect of lands granted on B-1 tenure and Form HH under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921, unless confirmation has been received to the respondent no. 2 that the applicant of building permission has deposited conversion premium for converting the landholding from B-1 tenure to C tenure as per the Government Notification dated 3rd August, 2019.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that form HH nowhere prescribes a condition of a prior per