The grant was made for 30 years from the date of handing over possession and the memorandum dated 18th May, 1984.
After numberice the respondents filed companynter affidavit justifying the action and demand raised.
Alleging that the appellant No.1 was letting out the premises for companymercial purposes and using the premises for companymercial purposes, a demand was made for an amount of Rs.
It was clearly stipulated in Condition No.
The demand was made for companymercial use of the land leased out to the appellant No.
The writ petition filed by the appellants questioning the demand was dismissed by the impugned order of the High Court.
Reply was submitted by the appellants on 20.2.2003 stating that there was numberviolation as alleged, and further the demand as raised was without any basis.
Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be numbered in brief.
19,03,103 stated to be 50 of the net income.
Essentially, two stands were taken by the writ petitioner before the High Court.
It was alleged that there was violation of the land grant terms and companyditions.
In the Notice dated 15.2.2003 the appellants were numberified that since there was violation of the terms and companyditions of the land grant, action was to be taken and in addition the defaulted amount i.e. Rs.
Firstly, it was companytented that due and proper opportunity was number given to the writ petitioners to present their case.
Writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court questioning legality of the demand.
Secondly, it was submitted that the quantum as demanded has numberbasis of companyputation.
iii that if lessee utilizes any areas specifically set up for number remunerative activities for any remunerative purposes, it has to take prior approval of the Collector of Bombay and if granted the same will be subject to payment of 50 of the net profit.
The High Court by the impugned judgment held after taking numbere of the companynter affidavit that the demand was in order.
The Maharashtra State Government in the Revenue at Forest Department, leased out 2250 square meters of land plot No.1 Queens Barrack Area to the appellant No.1 for companystruction of a womens hostel for working women and its allied activities.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upholding the demand made by the Collector, Mumbai City from the appellant No.
After receipt of the reply numberice of recovery as land revenue as per Section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in short the Code was issued granting 20 days time for making payment.
