IMPORTANT POINT
The government can only charge a one-time premium on exempted surplus vacant land under the ULC Act, not on the entire land owned by the Petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By the above Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners inter alia seek an order to direct Respondent No. 2 to refund an amount of Rs.2,66,75,750/- which, according to the Petitioner, is illegally exacted from it for obtaining a No Objection Certificate for development/sale of their land bearing Survey No. 429/1/2 and CTS No. 1069-A/ A-1 and 1069-A/B/1, aggregating to 4163 square meters, of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali, (for short “the entire land”).

3. It is the case of the Petitioners that after the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”), in a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry, Mumbai & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2014 (6) Mh. L.J. 829, it was held that the exemption granted under Section 20 of the ULC Act did not abate on repeal of the said Act. Being aggrieved by this decision of the Full Bench, some of the parties approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the time when the SLP was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice B. N. Shrikrishna (Retired), who recommended that the issue of exemption orders under Section 20 of the ULC Act should be closed by accepting certain payments. This recommendation was made in a Report dated 9th August 2018. Accordingly, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, made a statement before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the State was prepared to implement the recommendations made in the said Report of Justice B. N. Shrikrishna and suggested that the SLP/Appeal can be disposed of by permitting the State of Maharashtra to prepare a scheme for implementation of the recommendations made in the said Report. This suggestion was acceptable to the Appellants [before the Supreme Court] and therefore, on this basis, the SLP/Appeal filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was disposed of by an Order dated 2nd July 2019.

4. This led to Respondent No. 1 issuing the Government Resolution dated 1st August 2019 (the “2019 GR”) by which it effectively offered to close all pending issues regarding surplus land and the retained land [under the ULC Act], by accepting a payment, also called a ‘one-time premium’. Thereafter, on 23rd June 2021, Respondent No. 1 issued another Government Resolution (the “2021 GR”) to streamline the process of implementation of the 2019 GR and provide a basis for computation of the one-time premium.

5. Since the Petitioners were desirous of developing/selling the entire land, the Petitioners filed an Application dated 15th March 2021 enquiring about the one-time premium required to be paid for the exempted surplus vacant land in terms of the 2019 GR, and also requested that upon payment of the said one-time premium, a No Objection Certificate be issued by Respondent No. 2 to develop/sell the exempted surplus vacant land.

6. In response thereto, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter/demand dated 22nd April 2021, stating that, in view of the 2019 GR, the one-time premium required to be paid by the Petitioners would be in respect of the entire parcel of land (i.e.4163 square meters) and not merely the exempted surplus vacant land. The Petitioners were informed that as per the 2019 GR read with the 2021 GR, the one-time premium would be calculated at the rate of 15% of the market value [per square meter] of the entire parcel of the said land. Thus, the one-time premium that was demanded from the Petitioner was Rs.5,73,74,466/-. A copy of the said letter/demand dated 22nd April 2021 is annexed at Exhibit “J” to the Petition. The English translation of the said letter/demand, and which is not disputed by either party, reads thus:

“COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (URBAN LAND HOLDI