Disposed

Sigrun Realities Limited and Anr. v. City Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2009WP/1805/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged demand notices for development charges, arguing the levy was invalid without a hearing prior to assessment. The court held it appropriate to direct the corporation to afford a hearing before finalizing the demand.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent 1 to give a hearing to the petitioners regarding the demand for development charges and pass an appropriate order thereafter.

Sigrun Realities Limited and Anr. Vs City Industrial… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1805 OF 2009

¶6

Sigrun Realities Ltd. & Anr.

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

City Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Ors. ... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Biren Saraf for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. G.S. Hegde for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 23RD JULY, 2009.

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

The petitioners challenge the order/demand notices dated 24/6/2008, 12/9/2008, 6/10/2008, and 10/12/2008 calling upon them to pay development charges.

¶16

We have heard Mr. Saraf, learned counsel for the

¶17

AJN

¶18

¶19

petitioners. Mr. Saraf, inter alia, contended that the demand of Rs.19,81,61,825/- is made on the petitioners without even hearing the petitioners. He submitted that apart from the said fact, even bare reading of Section 124(A) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “the MRTP Act”) makes it clear that if commencement certificate for development is granted prior to 10/8/1992 being the date of commencement of the MRTP (Amendment) Act, 1992, no development charges are leviable for the development of the concerned property. Inasmuch as in this case, the commencement certificate was granted on 25/11/1991, no development charges would be payable and, hence, the impugned notices of demand are bad in law.

¶20

We have also heard Mr. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent 1. Mr. Hegde submitted that the impugned demand is perfectly legal and justified. He submitted that alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners under Section 124(G) of the MRTP Act and, hence, the

¶21

AJN

¶22

¶23

petition should not be entertained. He pointed out that if there is a delay in filing the appeal, it can be condoned if a case is made out by the petitioners for condoning the delay.

¶24

In the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the respondents’ contention regarding availability of an alternative remedy, since it is the submission of the petitioners that they were not heard before raising a demand on them, we feel that it would be appropriate, in the interest of justice, if respondent 1 gives hearing to the petitioners as regards their demand for development charges.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that objection to the demand notices dated 24/6/2008, 12/9/2008, 6/10/2008, and 10/12/2008 will be filed within two weeks from today. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent 1 states that within six weeks from the date of receipt of the objections, respondent 1 will pass

¶26

AJN

¶27

¶28

appropriate order thereon, after hearing the petitioners and communicate the result thereof to the petitioners.

¶29

We make it clear that on the merits of the case, we have not expressed any opinion.

¶30

The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

¶31

[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

¶32

[A.A. SAYED, J.]

Sigrun Realities Limited and Anr. v. City Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sigrun Realities Limited and Anr. v. City Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilesh Jain and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. Vs Jitendra Amrtilal Sheth and Ors.

Shankar Soma Rane Vs the Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation Project (Land) , Kolhapur and Ors.

Shivkumardas Guru Suresh Ramdas Vs the Asst.Charity Commissioner

Draupadabai Jagannath Bhosale Vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division) and Ors.

Vijaya Vishnu Kalan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.