JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:-By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking relief in the form of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to dereserve Plot Nos. 626/1 and 626/17 belonging to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively totally admeasuring 897.80 sq. mtrs. situated at village Oshiwara, of Taluka Andheri in Registration District and Sub District of Bombay Suburban and more particularly described in Exh. A to the petition. 2. The brief facts relevant for the decision are that the first Development Plan for K/West Ward of Greater Bombay was sanctioned by the respondent No. 1 on 7-7-1966 and it came into force with effect from 8-8-1966 and that at the relevant time, C.T.S. Nos. 626/1 and 626/17 which are the subject matter of the petition were falling under Industrial Zone (1-2). At that time, they were not reserved for any public purpose in the Development Plan. The petitioner No. 1 herein purchased Plot Nos. F-1 to F-16 (C.T.S. No. 626/1 to 626/5) along with some other plots by a Deed of Sale dated 21-11-1968. Similarly, the petitioner No. 2 also purchased plots bearing No. F-41 to F-44 (C.T.S. Nos. 626/17) by the Sale Deed of the same date. Both the deeds were duly registered. The respondent No. 2, Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay in terms of the provisions contained in section 23 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (hereinafter called the M.R.T.P. Act read with section 38 of the M.R.T.P. Act declared its intention to revise the said Development Plan which was finalised in the year 1966 and accordingly after following the procedure prescribed under the said M.R.T.P. Act, the respondent No. 1 changed the user of the said land in question along with the neighbouring area from Industrial zone to the residential zone by notification dated 14-1-1980. On 30-4-1984, after carrying out the actual survey in the concerned area in terms of the provisions contained under section 25 of the M.R.T.P. Act, the respondent No. 2 prepared and published necessary notice under section 26(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act inviting objections and suggestions from the public for the revised Development Plan. In the draft revised Development Plan, the land of the petitioners along with the adjoining land bearing C.T.S. No. 625 (part) was shown under reservation for the purpose of recreation ground. In the draft revised Development Plan, the land of the petitioners along with the adjoining land bearing C.T.S. No. 625 (part) was shown under reservation for the purpose of recreation ground. The entire area comprising of the said C.T.S. No. 625 (Part) along with the petitioners' land was shown as site No. 61 in the said plan and it comprised of total area of 26200 square meters. On 5-10-1985, the petitioners' Architect lodged objection to the said Development Plan and made certain suggestions for necessary correction and incorporation in the Draft Development Plan. The Planning Committee after hearing the objections and suggestions by all the persons concerned, including the petitioners, prepared a report on the basis of the such suggestions and objections, made certain recommendations. It recommended deletion of 50% of area from the reserved site No. 61. Consequently, the area comprising under C.T.S. No. 626 (part) from site No. 61 was dereserved and only the area comprising of C.T.S. No. 626/1 and 626/17 was retained as "the reserved area" for recreation ground. In the result, therefore, an area of only 879.80 square meters out of the total area of 26,200 sq. mtrs. was reserved for recreation ground. The said recommendation of the Committee was accepted by the respondent No. 2 who submitted the revised Draft Development Plan of K/West Ward for sanction under section 31 of the M.R.T.P. Act after modification therein as suggested by the Committee which included the dereservation of C.T.S. No. 626 (part) and continuation of C.T.S. No. 626/1 and 626/17 as the reserved area. On 19-5-1990, the scrutiny of the Draft Development Plan was carried out by the Urban Development Department and the same was placed before the Secretaries Committee appointed under the Chairmanship of Mr. K.B. Srinivasan (then Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra). Meanwhile, it is the case of the petitioners that despite the reservation being continued from the year 1984 in the area comprised under C.T.S. 625 (part), one M/s. Ajmera Construction Corporation commenced construction in the said plot No. 625 (part) which formed part of site No. 61. The construction was carried out sometime in the year 1991 without any objection by the respondents for such construction, and inspite of the fact that it was reserved area. The construction was carried out sometime in the year 1991 without any objection by the respondents for such construction, and inspite of the fact that it was reserved area. Simultaneously, the objections filed by the petitioners to the draft revised plan were being considered by the respondents and concerned Committee after studying the modification done by the Municipal Corporation in the draft revised plan and after carrying out inspection, submitted its report. A copy of the said report is made available on record at Exh. 2 along with the affidavit of the respondent No. 2. According to the said Committee report, since the building Construction had already come up in the area comprised of C.T.S. No. 625 (part), the said land was required to be dereserved since the said land was not available as recreation ground and therefore no purpose was to be served in keeping the said land under reservation. As regard the remaining portion of the area of site No. 61 which comprised of C.T.S. Nos. 626/1 and 626/17 belonging to the petitioners', it was decided to be continued to be kept as the reserved plot for recreation purpose. Consequent to the said report, the petitioners were informed by the respondent No. 1 on 29-6-1992, that request made for dereservation in respect of the said land of the petitioners would be considered while finalising the Draft Development Plan of the K/West Ward that the petitioners submissions would be considered at that time. The petitioners, accordingly, again by letter dated 14-3-1992 reminded the respondents to de-reserve their plots. However, the Government sanctioned the revised draft plan for K/West on the basis of the recommendations of the Srinivasan Committee which had been accepted by respondent No. 1 by its decision dated 19-3-1993 and accordingly, the notification to that effect was issued. The petitioners, subsequently enquired about the decision regarding their request for dereservation of their plots which was replied to by the respondent No. 2 on 16-6-1993 that the land of the petitioners was continued to be reserved for the purpose of recreation ground. The petitioners, thereupon, on 26-7-1993 made representation to the concerned Minister to look into the matter. However, the respondent No. 2 again informed the petitioners that the land in question of the petitioners was reserved for playground. The same was communicated to the petitioners by the respondent No. 2 by its letter dated 18-2-1994. The petitioners, thereupon, on 26-7-1993 made representation to the concerned Minister to look into the matter. However, the respondent No. 2 again informed the petitioners that the land in question of the petitioners was reserved for playground. The same was communicated to the petitioners by the respondent No. 2 by its letter dated 18-2-1994. Consequently, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the entire record placed before us, including the decision of the Planning Committee on the point of request by the petitioners for dereservation of their plots consequent to the dereservation of the area comprised under C.T.S. No. 625 (part) it is seen that undisputedly from the year 1984 the area comprised under C.T.S. No. 625 (part) was under reservation for recreation ground. While the said land continued to be under reservation for recreation ground, construction was carried out on the said plots sometime in the year 1991. The report of the Planning Committee as well as the Scrutiny Committee disclose that dereservation of plot comprising of C.T.S. No. 625 was on account of the fact that said area was already utilised with full F.S.I, for construction purposes and therefore was not available as play ground. In other words, since the fact of construction and non-availability of open land in C.T.S. No. 625 (part) being fait accompli, there was no justification for keeping the same under reservation for recreation purposes and that therefore it was to be de-reserved whereas the remaining area comprised of the petitioners plot continued to be an open land and therefore was decided to be retained as recreation ground. The decision in this regard of the Committee, the relevant portion of which is placed on record reads thus : "Sites inspected. Residential area from the Laxmi Nagar Layout towards the North side has wrongly been shown in green strip in reservation No. 200. Planning Authority has suggested to delete this strip from Recreation Ground and include it in Residential Zone. This may be accepted. Site No. 61 : Recreation ground, built utilising full F.S.I, of the deleted part. Since 'it is a fait accompli. This may be accepted. The northern remaining part may however be retained as Recreation Ground." 4. Planning Authority has suggested to delete this strip from Recreation Ground and include it in Residential Zone. This may be accepted. Site No. 61 : Recreation ground, built utilising full F.S.I, of the deleted part. Since 'it is a fait accompli. This may be accepted. The northern remaining part may however be retained as Recreation Ground." 4. The said report clearly disclose that Site No. 61 as it originally was comprised of an area of 26,200 square meters and consisted of Plot C.T.S. No. 626/1, 626/17 and 626 (part) sic 625 (part). While accepting the Development Control Rules, suggestion for deletion of the 50% of the land from the reservation plot, it is apparent that the Committee had recommended the entire area comprised of C.T.S. 625 part in the said site No. 61 to be dereserved only on the ground that the entire area was already utilised for the purpose of construction. It is to be noted here that the fact that the construction was carried out during the time when the land was reserved for recreation ground was not at all considered by the Committee nor any other ground was considered for the purpose of decision regarding dereservation of C.T.S. No. 625 (part) from Site No. 61, leaving aside remaining smaller plot comprising of C.T.S. Nos. 626/1 and 626/17. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the Development Plan as finalised by the notification of the year 1993 wherein the plot of the petitioners which has been continued to be under reservation is shown in black colour having a triangular shape and situated towards the north of the plot of National Institute of Oceanography and on the western side of D.P. Road. Area towards the north of the said plot of the petitioners which comprised of Plot No. 625 part is the area which has been dereserved pursuant to the decision of the respondents. 6. Area towards the north of the said plot of the petitioners which comprised of Plot No. 625 part is the area which has been dereserved pursuant to the decision of the respondents. 6. The respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit through the Assistant Director of Town Planning in the office of Deputy Director of Town Planning at Bombay wherein it has been clearly stated that on site inspection, it was noted that the residential area from Laxmi Nagar lay out towards north side was wrongly shown in green strip for recreation ground and as per the suggestion of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, this green strip was deleted from the recreation ground and included in the residential zone. So far as site No. 61 is concerned, it was found that there were two ten storeyed structures recently built on the dereserved plot and that since it is a fait accompli, the remaining part was retained as recreation ground and so far as the Site plot No. 625 (part) is concerned it was seen that huge multi storeyed buildings had come up and therefore no purpose could be served by reserving it for recreation ground and therefore was deleted. 7. It is apparent that white arriving at the decision for dereservation of C.T.S. No. 625 (part) from Site No. 61 apart from the fact that certain constructions were found already carried out in the said area and that therefore no purpose would be served in continuing to have the said area under reservation for recreation ground, no other factor was taken into consideration by the respondents and what is pertinent to note is that the fact that the said constructions which were said to have been carried out in the area were undertaken during the time when the said area was already under reservation for recreation purpose. There is nothing on record to show as to what purpose would be served by retaining an area of 879.80 square meters for recreation ground when the area of about more than 25,000 square meters was dereserved from the entire plot covered under Site No. 61. There is nothing on record to show as to what purpose would be served by retaining an area of 879.80 square meters for recreation ground when the area of about more than 25,000 square meters was dereserved from the entire plot covered under Site No. 61. That apart, from the fact that the Committee while arriving at such decision did not apply its mind to the fact that the area which was sought to be dereserved on the ground of having found some construction already carried out therein did not take into consideration the fact that undoubtedly the said constructions were ab initio illegal since the said constructions were carried out during the period when the said land continued to be part of reserved area for recreation ground. There is nothing on record to show that the purpose behind reserving the area of 26,200 sq. mtrs. for play ground could still be achieved even after reduction of the said plot to the extent of 879 sq. mtrs. 8. As rightly submitted by Mr. T.G. Vora, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the decision of the authority constituted under M.R.T.P. Act in relation to reservation or dereservation of plot has necessarily to be on application of its mind to the pertinent or germane material on the record and not based on extraneous or irrelevant factors. Indeed the submission is well fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Babubhai Co. and others v. State of Gujarat and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 613. The Hon'ble Supreme Court- while dealing with the matter pertaining to the exercise of powers by the authorities while arriving at a decision in exercise of their powers held that the orders which require to be speaking order and in compliance of principles of natural justice should ensure application of mind on the part of the concerned authority to the pertinent or germane material on the record excluding the extraneous and irrelevant and such order is subject to a judicial review under the writ jurisdiction of the Court on the grounds of perversity, extraneous influence, mala fides and other blatant infirmities. 9. 9. Considering the fact that the decision of the Committee on the request of the petitioners for dereservation of their plots from the reservation for recreation purpose and refusal to accept the said request while deciding the dereservation of the area comprising of C.T.S. No. 625 (part) solely on the ground of existence of constructions therein and being on no other ground or material, the same cannot be considered to be a just and proper decision on application of mind to the materials on record. The decision in this view of the. matter being arbitrary and without considering the relevant material cannot be sustained. We make it clear that normally we would have restrained ourselves from interfering in the matters pertaining to the decision regarding the finalisation of the draft plan under M.R.T.P. Act. However, considering the peculiar facts disclosed in this case we are constrained to hold otherwise. 10. Mrs. N.V. Sanglikar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, did try to submit that the petition suffers from laches for having approached the Court after one year of the issue of notification finalising the Development Plan. Moreover, the record discloses that the petitioners had been representing their cause and had even made representation to the concerned Minister and received a final reply thereto only in February, 1994. Being so; the petitioners cannot be held guilty of laches in approaching this Court. 11. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, we are constrained to hold that the decision of the respondents to refuse dereservation of Plot Nos. 626/1 and 626/17 admeasuring 879 square metres belonging to the petitioners and to dereserve adjacent land admeasuring more than 25,000 square metres on the ground that constructions have come up there, on the face of it, appears arbitrary and mala fide. Such action on the part of the respondents would, to say the least, amount to giving benefit to those persons who have taken law in their own hands and penalising law-abiding citizens. Hence, the said order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside and further the respondents are ordered to dereserve the said plots of the petitioners. 12. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. Petition allowed.