Judgment K.A. Puj, J.—Special Civil Application No. 8820 of 1989 is filed by Dwarka Nagar Panchayat challenging the interim order dated 15.12.1989 passed by the Development Commissioner calling upon the petitioner to return goods and articles. This Court has passed an order on 6.2.1990 staying the order dated 15.12.1989 and directing the Development Commissioner to decide the matter pending before him within four weeks of the receipt of writ of the order dated 6.2.1990. The Court further clarified that the attached property would remain attached but would not be auctioned till further order. 2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 6.2.1990 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8820 of 1989 the Development Commissioner has passed an order on 12.3.1990 determining the amount of tax payable by the Respondent No. 1 Company on account of octroi as well as house tax at Rs. 3,74,888/- and deducting therefrom an amount of Rs. 3,28,659/- being the amount spent by the Company, net lumpsum amount of Rs. 46,229/- was determined to be payable by the Respondent No. 1. Company. 3. Instead of making an amendment in the pending petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8820 of 1989, the petitioner filed separate petition being Special Civil Application No. 2735 of 1990 challenging the order dated 12.3.1990 passed by the Development Commissioner. 4. This Court has passed a detailed order on 11.04.1990. Certain directions were issued by this Court in the said order. The Court has observed that the total claim of the Panchayat, so far as house tax and octroi are concerned, was Rs. 27,85,339.87 which covered an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- by way of maintenance charges. The Court has initially directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of a Nationalized Bank to the tune of Rs. 26 Lacs. Subsequently, by an order dated 20.10.1992 passed in Civil Application No. 1955 of 1992, this Court has permitted the petitioner to replace the Bank Guarantee with an undertaking and on the basis of the purshish the amount of Rs. 26 Lacs was deposited in a Fixed Deposit Receipt in favour of Registrar of this Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.09.2008 passed in Civil Application No. 10912 of 2008, Fixed Deposit Receipts were transferred in the name of M/s. Chandra Trading Company. 26 Lacs was deposited in a Fixed Deposit Receipt in favour of Registrar of this Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.09.2008 passed in Civil Application No. 10912 of 2008, Fixed Deposit Receipts were transferred in the name of M/s. Chandra Trading Company. However, the Court has directed the Registrar to keep the said fixed deposit receipts with him till the petition was finally heard and disposed of. 5. Civil Application No. 12320 of 2005 is filed by the Dwarka Cement Works Limited, the Respondent No. 1 Company in the main petition seeking direction to State Bank of India, Dhangadhra Branch to transfer the present Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the said applicant in place of Chandra Trading Company. 6. Civil Application No. 10364 of 2007 is filed by Suku Premises Development Private Limited seeking clarification from this Court that the dispute with regard to lumpsum contribution fixed by the learned Development Commissioner vide his order dated 12.03.1990 which is the subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 2735 of 1990 does not pertain to the land admeasuring Acres 06.27 Gunthas situated at Survey No. 3843 of village Dwarka, Tal. Okha, Kalyanpur, Dist. Jamnagar, but it pertains to the land and building situated at Survey Numbers which are the subject property of the Deed of Lease between Associated Cement Company and Dwarka Cement Company. 7. Civil Application No. 1727 of 2008 is filed by Suku Premises Development Private Limited seeking permission of this Court to delete the Respondent No. 3 –Associated Cement Company Limited as a party - respondent in Civil Application No. 10364 of 2007. 8. At the outset, Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned Advocate appearing for Nanavati Associates for the applicant in Civil Application No. 10364 of 2007 states that this application has become infructuous and he does not press this application. Hence, the said Civil Application stands disposed of as having become infructuous. 9. In view of the order passed in Civil Application No. 10364 of 2007, disposing off the same, Civil Application No. 1727 of 2008 does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. 10. So far as main petitions i.e. Special Civil Application Nos.8820 of 1989 and 2735 of 1990 are concerned, learned Counsels appearing for the parties were heard and their submissions are considered. 11. Mr. 10. So far as main petitions i.e. Special Civil Application Nos.8820 of 1989 and 2735 of 1990 are concerned, learned Counsels appearing for the parties were heard and their submissions are considered. 11. Mr. Rana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Dwarka Nagarpalika which is successor of Dwarka Nagar Panchayat contended that the order of the Development Commissioner impugned in this petition is liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Tanna, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 Company and other private respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 179 of Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, the order of the Development Commissioner becomes final and it is not open for the Nagar Panchayat to challenge the order of the Development Commissioner. Even on merits, he submitted that the order of the Development Commissioner does not call for any interference by this Court as while determining the amount of tax payable by the Respondent No. 1 Company, the Development Commissioner had taken into consideration all details and all relevant facts of the case. 12. Mr. Rana further submitted that there were later bills for subsequent years which are to be paid by the respondent Company. Against this, Mr. Tanna raised an objection that the same is not the subject matter of these petitions. He has further submitted that the demands and calculations were based on the same error which Nagar Panchayat had committed in demanding the amount and hence such demands should also consequently fail. He has further submitted that for several years bills were not sent and in 2001 and 2008 respectively consolidated bills were sent. He has submitted that it is settled principle of law that demand should have been made in every financial year and such demand cannot be made at the fag end of the decade. 13. In view of above rival submissions and looking to nature and complexity of the issues, we suggested the learned counsels appearing for the parties to sit across and put an end to all disputes in an amicable manner. While resolving the disputes, the relevant considerations and fact situations which are to be kept in mind are that the Development Commissioner had determined the amount of tax to be payable for the relevant period is Rs. 46,229/-. While resolving the disputes, the relevant considerations and fact situations which are to be kept in mind are that the Development Commissioner had determined the amount of tax to be payable for the relevant period is Rs. 46,229/-. This court, in its interim order dated 11.4.1990, made detailed discussion and found sufficient merits in the petition. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 Company or intending purchasers of its assets were asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 26 lacs so as to safeguard the interest of the Nagar Panchayat. This amount was, in fact, deposited and invested in the fixed deposit receipts which had gone upto about Rs. 1 crore at present. It is true that the petitioner Nagar Panchayat had raised composite bills for number of years, which may not be enforceable, if challenged before the competent forum. However, parties are desirous of putting an end to this litigation once and for all. The Court shows some indulgence to resolve these disputes only because Dwarka as a holy city requires fast development and for betterment of this city, some formulas are required to be worked out which will ultimately prove to be beneficial to all. 14. A broad consensus was prevailed amongst the parties and hence, it is not necessary for the Court to minutely go into all these submissions and to pass a detailed order on merits on the issues involved in these two petitions. 15. Considering the broad consensus arrived at between the parties, following order is passed by the Court. (i) Technically, order passed by the Development Commissioner on 12.3.1990 is confirmed. However, the Respondent No. 1 Company shall not claim back the amount of Rs. 26 lacs alongwith interest earned thereon during all these years. (ii) The amount lying in fixed deposits with State Bank of India, Dhangadhra Branch, Dhangadhra be transferred with interest to State Bank of India, Dwarka Branch, Dwarka and be kept in a newly opened joint account to be jointly operated by the Chief Officer of Dwarka Nagar Palika as well as either by Mr. Jiten P. Mody or Mr. Ashok P. Mody, Directors of the Respondent No. 1 Company i.e. Dwarka Cement Works Limited. (iii) After the amount being transferred to the newly opened joint account, the entire amount except Rs. Jiten P. Mody or Mr. Ashok P. Mody, Directors of the Respondent No. 1 Company i.e. Dwarka Cement Works Limited. (iii) After the amount being transferred to the newly opened joint account, the entire amount except Rs. 10 lacs which are to be retained in the said account to meet with the initial expenditure that may be incurred for development work, be invested in the fixed deposits of Rs. 10 lacs each in the joint-names as indicated above initially for the period of one year and thereafter, to be renewed for the further period of one year, from time to time, till the entire amount is spent for the development work. (iv) The amount so retained in the joint account or so invested in the fixed deposits are required to be utilised for the development of the area at which the property in question is situated and the developmental purpose for which such amount will be utilised are water, electricity, sewage, road and other such basic and primary requirements. As and when such development work is undertaken, it is with joint consent of the parties and in case of any dispute or difficulty, appropriate direction from this Court be sought for. (v) Considering the above arrangement, there will not be any outstanding tax liability of the Respondent No. 1 Company on account of house rent or octroi qua the property in question for the period upto March, 2010. (vi) Registrar to see that this order be carried out in its true letter and spirit. 16. With these directions and observations, all these petitions and applications are accordingly disposed off without any order as to costs. P P P P P