VIJENDER JAIN, ACJ. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the AAIFR. ( 2 ) THE AAIFR held that Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai did not object to the relief and concessions envisaged under DRS within the time limit prescribed nor had they sought additional time, therefore, the BIFR ought to have considered it as a case of 'deemed consent' as embodied under Section 19 (2) of the Act. Our attention has been drawn to the scheme which is at Page 41 of the paper book. The same is reproduced below: k. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai: to consideri) To grant permission to sale/development of surplus land and other assets included plan and machinery located at Mahalaxmi, Prabhadevi and Crown Mill as envisaged in the scheme. ii) To consider to grant waiver of outstanding interest and other charges in respect of municipal tax, property tax, water and sewerage charges and octroi and agree to receive repayment of principle in respect of these dues in 4 equal quarterly instalments commencing from the dale of sanction of the scheme without interest. iii) To not to charge additional water tax and sewerage tax deemed as property tax for non-payment of water charges till workers dues and secured lenders dues are completely paid off out of proceeds of property development as envisaged in the scheme. ( 3 ) ON 19. 7. 2006 statement was made by the counsel for the respondent that Rs. 21 lacs has to be paid by the respondent and our attention was drawn by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 3 through Mr. Rahul Thakre had admitted its liability to the tune of Rs. 31,70,898/ -. At that stage Mr. Nayar counsel for respondent no. 3 prayed for some time to seek instructions whether the sum of Rs. 31,70,898/- could be paid to the petitioner so that the work under the scheme should not suffer. Today Mr. Nayar counsel for respondent no. 3 says that he has received instructions and a sum of Rs. 31,70,898/- shall be paid to the petitioner within two weeks without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition. On the other hand Mr. Sisodia counsel for the petitioner says that the total amount which has to be paid by the respondent no. 3 says that he has received instructions and a sum of Rs. 31,70,898/- shall be paid to the petitioner within two weeks without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition. On the other hand Mr. Sisodia counsel for the petitioner says that the total amount which has to be paid by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner is Rs. 56,11,698. We are not determining in the present writ petition as to whether the amount due is Rs. 31,70,898/- or Rs. 56,11,698/- for which the parties may seek their remedies. Mr. Nayar counsel for the respondent has contended that it was the counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai who made statement before the AAIFR that necessary approvals for the development of the land shall be given by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Be that as it may, the question of 'deemed consent' pursuant to the scheme is wrong. Mr. Nayyar has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 31,70,898/- to the petitioner without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties. On receipt of the said amount the petitioner shall consider the scheme for grant of permission for development of C and D Units as stated in the scheme. With this direction writ petition stands disposed of.