Judgment :- R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith grant to the petitioners Development Rights Certificate (for short D.R.C.) of total area of 31057.30 sq. meters for the construction and development of the amenity viz. Recreation Ground (for short R.G.) as set out in the petitioners applications dated 17.04.1998 (Exhibit ‘K’), 03.11.2009 (Exhibit ‘O’) and 23.07.2010 (Exhibit ‘Q’). 2. Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No.2 has entered into an agreement to purchase part of the property owned by Petitioner No.1 and has for valuable consideration been irrevocably appointed as a constituted attorney of the Petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short the ‘Corporation’). Respondent No.2 is the Municipal Commissioner and the Respondent No.3 is Executive Engineer (Development Plan) of the Corporation. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were owners and otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to that piece and parcel of land bearing C.T.S.No.2B (part) falling in ‘N’ Ward admeasuring 2710 sq. meters and C.T.S.Nos.2B (part) and 3B falling in ‘S’ Ward admeasuring 28347.30 sq. meters of village Ghatkopar, Taluka Kurla (for short the said lands). The said lands were reserved in the Development Plant for Greater Mumbai for public amenity viz. Recreation Ground (for short R.G.), Under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (for short ‘Regulations’) and in particular, Regulation 34 read with Appendix VII thereof, when the owner or lessee of a plot which is reserved for the public purpose in the Development Plan and for additional amenities which are deemed to be reservations provided in accordance with the Regulations, are eligible for the award of Transferable Development Right (for short T.D.R.) in the form of Floor Space Index (for short F.S.I.) to the extent and on the conditions set out therein. The owner or the lessee of a plot of land which is reserved for amenities/ public purpose in the Development Plan, is eligible for T.D.R. In F.S.I.) (i) equal to the gross area of the reserved plot to be surrendered as per clause 5 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34, and (ii) further T.D.R. in the form of F.S.I. equivalent to the area of construction/development done by him on the surrendered plot at his costs subject to such stipulations as may be prescribed by the Commissioner or the appropriate authority as the case may be and to their satisfaction and hands over the said developed /constructed amenity to the Commissioner/ appropriate authority, free of costs as per clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 of the Regulations. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they surrendered the said lands covered by the R.G. Reservation to the Corporation and were given T.D.R. in the year 1996 equal to the area of the said land in accordance with clause 5 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 of the Regulations. The petitioners thereafter at considerable expense developed and handed over the said amenity/ R.G. in accordance with plans / layouts sanctioned by the Corporation and requested for equivalent T.D.R./ F.S.I. under clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 of the Regulations. However, Corporation refused to give additional T.D.R. by relying on its policy circular which lays down that such additional T.D.R. would be given for buildable ameminites upto to 15% / 25% for roads developed /constructed and would not be admissible for Recreation Grounds developed. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier the Petitioner No.1 had constructed the Development Plan Road and the Corporation, relying upon the said policy circular, had denied them T.D.R. equivalent to 100% of the road area. The Petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.845 of 1998 which was dismissed by this Court on 18.10.2005. The Apex Court by its judgment & order dated 06.02.2009 reported in the case of Godrej & Boycee Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v/s. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24 ,set aside this Court’s decision dated 18.10.2005 and allowed the Writ Petition No.845 of 1998. The Apex Court by its judgment & order dated 06.02.2009 reported in the case of Godrej & Boycee Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v/s. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24 ,set aside this Court’s decision dated 18.10.2005 and allowed the Writ Petition No.845 of 1998. The Apex Court held that (i) the municipal authorities cannot override or supersede the statutory provisions contained in clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 of the Regulations by issuing circulars in the nature of executive instructions (ii) the regulation fixes the measure of equivalence by using the words “equivalent to the area of construction/development done on the surrendered land. The area of construction/development having been fixed as the measure of equivalence, it is no longer open to the Corporation to contend that any other basis such as value may be used for determining the equivalence. After the judgment of the Apex Court, the Corporation gave the petitioners T.D.R. under clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 for the area of road developed in that case. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners surrendered and handed over to the Respondents, free of costs, said lands which were reserved for R.G. in due compliance with the provisions of the Regulations and opted to avail of T.D.R. in view thereof. The possession of the said lands alongwith structures was taken over by the Respondents on 09.12.1995 and two separate possession receipts were issued by the Respondents confirming the said fact. Pursuant thereto, the Corporation issued D.R.C.’s restricted only to the F.S.I. of the said reserved land as per clause 5 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 of the Regulations, details whereof are as under:- 7. The work of construction/development of the amenity viz. R.G. on the reserved land was carried out by the petitioners in two phases. The first phase being the extensive cutting, filling, leveling, terracing, construction of decorative retaining walls, decorative compound walls, decorative grills, decorative gates, two aesthetically designed grand staircases terminating into viewing gallery, additional independent access routes to the hutments in the vicinity in the said reserved land, construction of storm water drains, construction of watchman cabin, side office, store room, store godown, generator room etc., to enable further construction and development of the said lands. Thereafter, permission /no objection was granted by the Respondents for further development/ land scaping of the said lands as R.G. The said development interalia included construction/ development of bund walls, pitching, platforms, floor terraces, pathways, extensive plantations, gardening, landscaping, lawns, jogging track, lights, play area, viewing gallery, fountain, green house, nursery etc. All such work of construction and development was carried out by the petitioners in accordance with the plans approved by and the specifications issued by the Respondent and to the entire satisfaction of the Respondents. Pursuant thereto, completion certificate in the form of letter dated 27.05.1995 was issued by the Deputy City Engineer (Planning and Design) of the Respondents to M/s. Worthy Enterprise, the Architects of the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 also completed construction of storm water drains as is evident from the letter dated 20.10.1995 issued by the Respondents to the Architects of the petitioners. 8. By letter dated 14.12.1995 Superintendent of Gardens communicated to M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architect of Petitioner No.1 their no objection for development/ land scaping of the said lands. This communication was in response to the application dated 07.12.1995 made by the Architect of the Petitioner No.1 seeking approval and no objection certificate of the Superintendent of Gardents for development/ land scaping recreation ground, as per the plan enclosed. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that Petitioner No.2 continued the construction / development / land scaping of the amenity viz. R.G., and in or about January, 1998 Petitioner No.2 completed the construction/development of the said R.G. on the said lands as per the requirements and specifications of the Respondents. The petitioners had incurred considerable expenses in the course of construction and development of the said R.G. Thus the petitioners opted to construct and develop the said amenity/ R.G. as per the specifications of the Respondents with the legitimate expectations of obtaining additional T.D.R. in lieu of such construction and development, in accordance with clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. 10. After construction and development of the said lands into the amenity viz. R.G., Petitioner No.2 through his firm M/s. Mayfair Housing also undertook maintenance thereof and has been maintaining the same at the costs and expenses of the said firm, on and from the year 1998. 10. After construction and development of the said lands into the amenity viz. R.G., Petitioner No.2 through his firm M/s. Mayfair Housing also undertook maintenance thereof and has been maintaining the same at the costs and expenses of the said firm, on and from the year 1998. The Petitioners enquired with the Respondents regarding the grant of additional T.D.R. of 31057.30 sq, meters as per the provisions of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. However, the petitioners were informed by the Respondents that in view of Circular dated 09.04.1996, the owners of the surrendered land were not entitled to any T.D.R. in lieu of construction/development of the R.G. The Petitioners submitted two applications both dated 17.04.1998 to the Respondents calling upon them to issue additional T.D.R. to the petitioners. By letter dated 27.11.1998, Respondents informed that the proposal submitted by the petitioners for grant of additional T.D.R. in lieu of development of R.G., cannot be considered as per the prevailing policy in this respect. Since the petitioners had already filed Writ Petition No.845 of 1998 challenging the validity of the circular dated 09.04.1996, the petitioners did not challenge the letter dated 27.11.1998 once again by filing another petition. 11. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No.845/1998, Respondents issued another circular on 05.04.2003 thereby enhancing the T.D.R. entitlement in lieu of construction of amenity of D.P. Road from 15% to 25% available under the earlier Circular dated 09.04.1996. The petitioners addressed a letter dated 03.11.2009 calling upon the Respondents to issue T.D.R. after setting out the entire facts and circumstances as also citing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boycee Co. Ltd. (supra). There was no response from the Respondents. The Respondents however published the notification dated 02.12.2009 inviting objections and suggestions regarding the proposed amendment to the provisions of Appendix VII of the Regulations. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have instituted the present petition on 28.09.2010, praying for direction to the Respondents to forthwith grant D.R.C. of total area of 31057.30 sq. meters for the construction and development of amenity (R.G.) as set out in the petitioners applications dated 17.04.1998 (Exhibit ‘K’), 03.11.2009 (Exhibit ‘O’) and 23.07.2010 (Exhibit ‘Q’). 12. On behalf of the Respondents, Nilesh B. Futane, Assistant Engineer (D.P.) has made an affidavit. meters for the construction and development of amenity (R.G.) as set out in the petitioners applications dated 17.04.1998 (Exhibit ‘K’), 03.11.2009 (Exhibit ‘O’) and 23.07.2010 (Exhibit ‘Q’). 12. On behalf of the Respondents, Nilesh B. Futane, Assistant Engineer (D.P.) has made an affidavit. It is contended that the petition raises several disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into in the exercise of extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, the petition also suffers from gross delay and latches, as the petition is filed after 12 years from the date of rejection of the petitioners request for additional T.D.R. i.e. on 27.11.1998 and on that count alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. It is further contended that the issues involved in this petition about the said R.G. can be explained in two stages i.e.(i) surrender of R.G. against T.D.R. and (ii) development & maintenance thereof under the agreement of care taker basis with M/s. Mayfair Housing. The said lands were reserved for R.G. in the sanctioned revised development plan of N & S Wards. M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architects on behalf of Petitioner No.1, by their letter dated 14.07.1994 requested the Chief Engineer (D.P.) of the Corporation to take over the said lands reserved for R.G. in lieu of T.D.R., as per the Regulations and the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the ‘Act’). Alongwith the said letter the application form signed by Mr. P.D. Lam, Executive Vice President of Petitioner No.1, was submitted. Sr.No.17 of the said form required information to be furnished for construction upon the said lands as per the plans approved by the concerned authority as per clause 6 of Appendix VII and if so, details thereof. Against serial No.17, on behalf of Petitioner No.1 it was set out that the question does not arise as the reservation is for R.G. This according to the affiant shows that the petitioners had not applied for additional T.D.R. under clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. The petitioners intended to avail of T.D.R. only under clause 5 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. 14. It is further asserted that the Architect of Petitioner No.1 submitted plan showing overall development of the R.G. reservation by way of cutting, filling, leveling, terracing as per clause 15 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. The petitioners intended to avail of T.D.R. only under clause 5 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. 14. It is further asserted that the Architect of Petitioner No.1 submitted plan showing overall development of the R.G. reservation by way of cutting, filling, leveling, terracing as per clause 15 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. By letter dated 05.04.1995, the Chief Engineer (Development Plan) informed Petitioner No.1 that they shall carry out the work as per the plans submitted by M/s. Worthy Enterprises under letter dated 24.11.1994. The letter dated 24.11.1994 addressed by M/s. Worthy Enterprises records that the Dy. Superintendent of Gardens visited the site alongwith Superintendent of Gardens. Pursuant to the suggestions made by the Garden Department, M/s. Worthy Enterprises prepared set of drawings incorporating the suggestions made by the Garden Department and requested to forward the proposal to the Chief Engineer (D.P.) with the approval of the Superintendent of Gardens. The work of cutting, filling etc. is a condition precedent for obtaining the T.D.R. in lieu of surrender of land under reservation as per clause 15 of Appendix VII. 15. On 27.05.1995, Dy. City Engineer (Planning and Design) (Sub.) of the Corporation accepted the completion certificate submitted by M/s. Worthy Enterprises wherein it was set out that the work was found completed as per the amended plans approved by his department and as per the relocation approved by the Director (E.S.& P.) On 07.06.1995 M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Gardens recording that the Petitioner No.1 had applied to the D.P. Department for handing over the lands under reservation to the Corporation free of costs against the grant of T.D.R. Request was made to intimate the Executive Engineer (D.P.) of the Department that the work of cutting, leveling, filling etc. is completed and that the work of development of Garden is under progress and that the Garden Department has no objection if the proposal of Petitioner No.1 for D.R.C./T.D.R., is processed further. 16. By letter dated 20.07.1995, the Chief Engineer (D.P.) called upon the Petitioner No.1 to comply with the requirements more particularly set out therein before handing over the said lands to the Corporation and on complying with the requirements, necessary D.R.C. will be issued. Copy of the letter was also sent to M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architects of the Petitioner No.1. 16. By letter dated 20.07.1995, the Chief Engineer (D.P.) called upon the Petitioner No.1 to comply with the requirements more particularly set out therein before handing over the said lands to the Corporation and on complying with the requirements, necessary D.R.C. will be issued. Copy of the letter was also sent to M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architects of the Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, possession of the said lands was taken over on 09.12.1995 and to that effect, two possession receipts were issued. On 20.12.1995 M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter to the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation setting out the compliance for issuing the D.R.C.s to the owners only. 17. After due scrutiny two separate D.R.C.s viz.000047 & 000048 for 28347.30 sq.meters and 2710.00 sq.meters respectively were issued to Petitioner No.1 on 02.01.1996. This was in lieu of surrender of the said lands. While handing over the possession of R.G. and accepting the D.R.C.s, the petitioners never raised issue of grant of additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. In fact, in the form dated 14.07.1994, in column No.17 it was specifically stated on behalf of Petitioner No.1 that the question of developing the reservation as per clause 6 of Appendix VII does not arise as the reservation is for R.G. This clearly showed that while handing over possession of the R.G. and accepting D.R.C.s, issue of additional T.D.R. for construction/development was never raised by the petitioners, and the same was handed over by only doing the required work as per clause 15 of Appendix VII. 18. It is further contended that in so far as 2nd stage is concerned, by letter dated 20.11.1996 the Petitioner No.2, one of the partners of M/s. Mayfair Housing offered to develop and maintain the R.G. with suitable terms for a period of five years. M/s. Mayfair Housing is a separate legal entity and has no nexus with the Petitioner No.1. It was denied that M/s. Mayfair Housing carried out various civil work such as construction of compound wall, gates, messonary retaining wall etc. 19. The request made by M/s. Mayfair Housing for development and maintenance of R.G. for a period of five years on care taker basis was considered by the Respondents and by letter dated 23.01.1998, M/s. Mayfair Housing was allotted the said lands for development and maintenance on payment of normal lease amount of Re. 19. The request made by M/s. Mayfair Housing for development and maintenance of R.G. for a period of five years on care taker basis was considered by the Respondents and by letter dated 23.01.1998, M/s. Mayfair Housing was allotted the said lands for development and maintenance on payment of normal lease amount of Re. 1 per annum and on terms and conditions set out therein. One of the terms and conditions was to the effect that no T.D.R. will be given in lieu of the said lands. Allotment letter was accepted by M/s. Mayfair Housing and accordingly, an agreement was executed between the Corporation and M/s. Mayfair Housing for a period of five years commencing from 23.01.1998 to 22.01.2003. Under clause 9 of the said agreement, Petitioner No.2 had specifically agreed and accepted that M/s. Mayfair Housing shall not be entitled to any advantage including T.D.R. for development and maintenance of R.G. which is given on care taker basis. Clause 10 thereof further provided that whenever the Corporation decides to develop the R.G. as per Regulation 9 of Regulations by allowing construction of structures for ancillary uses such as Gymnasium, Club-House on 1/3 area of the entire plot, the same will be done by inviting bids as per the proposed guidelines, and M/s. Mayfair Housing will have to compete with other bidders and will not get any advantage on the ground that they are maintaining this R.G. 20. On 17.04.1998 a letter was addressed by Shri.Nayan Shah in the capacity of constituted attorney to Petitioner No.1 to the Chief Engineer (D.P.) for grant of additional T.D.R. for constructing the amenity on the lands under reservation as per clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 on the ground that they have developed the R.G. by carrying out various works set out therein. It was further asserted that the said work was not required in normal cases for grant of T.D.R. and therefore they be compensated by granting additional T.D.R. for development of the said lands under clause 6 of Appendix VII. 21. Affiant denied that any development work was carried out by the petitioners as alleged entitling them to additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. 21. Affiant denied that any development work was carried out by the petitioners as alleged entitling them to additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. The only work as required under clause 15 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 was carried out while surrendering the said lands against the land T.D.R. This was also admitted while submitting the application on 14.07.1994 and in particular serial No.17 of the said form. Accordingly, on 27.11.1998, Deputy Chief Engineer (D.P.) (II) informed Petitioner No.2 that the proposal submitted for grant of additional T.D.R. in lieu of development of R.G. cannot be considered as per the prevailing policy in that respect. It is further contended that the lands reserved for R.G. are situate among the buildings constructed and developed by M/s. Mayfair Housing. The flat purchasers / occupiers are mainly beneficiaries of the said R.G. The development and maintenance of the said R.G. has appreciated the value of the said buildings constructed by M/s.Mayfair Housing. It is for this reason M/s. Mayfair Housing came forward to carry out the work of development and maintenance of the R.G. on care taker basis. The Corporation did not impose any stipulation for development of the said R.G. except under Regulation 15 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 for handing over R.G. in lieu of the land T.D.R. Subsequently on 04.01.2003 M/s. Mayfair Housing applied for renewal of the agreement for a further period of five years on same terms and conditions. Accordingly, fresh agreement was executed between M/s. Mayfair Housing and the Corporation for a further period from 23.01.2003 to 22.01.2008. The said agreement is signed by Mr. Nayan Shah on behalf of M/s. Mayfair Housing. Petitioner No. 2 addressed a letter dated 03.11.2009 as a constituted attorney to Petitioner No.1 requesting to process the applications for grant of additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 to the extent of 31057.30 sq. meters on having constructed the amenity in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the Corporation. This was followed by another application dated 23.07.2010. Since there was no response, the petitioners instituted present petition on 28th September 2010. 22. We have heard Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel in support of this petition and Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation and its authorities in opposition. Mr. This was followed by another application dated 23.07.2010. Since there was no response, the petitioners instituted present petition on 28th September 2010. 22. We have heard Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel in support of this petition and Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation and its authorities in opposition. Mr. Chinoy submitted that in the present petition, there is no dispute about grant of T.D.R. on account of surrender of land reserved for R.G. in terms of clause 5 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. What is in dispute is the entitlement of the petitioners for grant of additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII. He submitted that when the owner or lessee also develops or constructs the amenity on the surrendered plot at his costs subject to the stipulations as may be prescribed by the Commissioner or the appropriate authority as the case may be and to their satisfaction and hands-over the said developed/ constructed amenity to the appropriate authority, free of costs, he is entitled to grant of a further D.R. in the form of F.S.I. equivalent to the area of construction/ development done by him in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. He invited our attention to the correspondence exchanged between the parties and submissions made by the officers of the Corporation to their superior officer, which are annexed to the petition as also to the affidavits filed by the petitioners and the Corporation to substantiate that the petitioner No.1, in fact, carried out development/construction on the said lands surrendered by incurring huge expenditure. The development was carried out as per the stipulations prescribed by the Respondents and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to the additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. 23. On the other hand, Mr. Sakhare strenuously contended that none of the petitioners has carried out development/ construction on the said lands reserved for R.G. after surrendering the said lands to the Corporation. All the work that was carried out was in terms of clause 15 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. 23. On the other hand, Mr. Sakhare strenuously contended that none of the petitioners has carried out development/ construction on the said lands reserved for R.G. after surrendering the said lands to the Corporation. All the work that was carried out was in terms of clause 15 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. For surrender of lands under reservation the work so carried out was inspected by the Deputy City Engineer (Planning & Design) (Sub.) on 23.05.1995 and the work was found completed as per the amended plans approved by his department and as per the relocation approved by the Directors (E.S.& P.) alongwith the required cutting, filling etc. The completion certificate submitted by M/s. Worthy Enterprises was accepted on 27.05.1995. However, the petitioners never submitted any application claiming additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. He submitted that the petitioners have not developed or constructed amenity on the surrendered plot, subject to the stipulations that could be prescribed by the Commissioner or the appropriate authority. Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim to have handed over the said developed / constructed amenity to the satisfaction of the Commissioner/ appropriate authority. He submitted that the appropriate authority in so far as the Garden Department is concerned, is the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. He further submitted that at any rate the petition raises several disputed questions of facts as also suffers from gross delay and latches. He therefore submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 24. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties. The short question is whether the petitioners are entitled to additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 of the Regulations. Clauses 5, 6 & 7 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 are relevant for deciding the controversy and the same read as under:- “5. The built-up area for the purpose of FSI credit in the form of a DRC shall be equal to the gross area of the reserved plot to be surrendered and will proportionately increase or decrease according to the permissible FSI of the zone where from the TDR has originated. The built-up area for the purpose of FSI credit in the form of a DRC shall be equal to the gross area of the reserved plot to be surrendered and will proportionately increase or decrease according to the permissible FSI of the zone where from the TDR has originated. (Provided that in specific cases considering the merits, where Development Plan Roads/ reservations are proposed in No Development Zone, the Commissioner with prior approval of the Government shall grant FSI for such road land/reserved land equivalent to that of the adjoining zone.” “6.When an owner or lessee who develops or constructs the amenity on the surrendered plot at his cost subject to such stipulations as may be prescribed by the Commissioner or the appropriate authority as the case may be and to their satisfaction and hands over the said developed/constructed amenity to the Commissioner/appropriate authority, free of cost, he may be granted by the Commissioner a further DR in the form of FSI equivalent to the area of the construction/development done by him, utilisation of which etc. will be subject to the Regulations contained in this Appendix.” “7. A DRC will be issued only on the satisfactory compliance with the conditions prescribed in this Appendix.” In support of this claim, the petitioners relied upon the correspondence exchanged between the parties and which is enclosed to the petition as also the affidavits filed by the Corporation and the petitioners. They have also relied upon the submissions put up by the subordinate officers of the Corporation to their superior officers soliciting sanctions/ approvals. Since everything turns on the correspondence exchanged between the parties as also the submissions put up by the officers of the Corporation, we have carefully gone through this material which is placed on record by the parties. In order to find out whether the petitioners, in fact, developed or constructed the amenity in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 it is necessary to make a detailed reference sequentially to the correspondence and material on record. (i) 14/07/1994 :M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architects of the petitioner No.1 submitted a letter on this day to the Chief Engineer (D.P.) of the Corporation requesting him to take over the said lands under reservation and grant necessary T.D.R. as per the regulations. (i) 14/07/1994 :M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architects of the petitioner No.1 submitted a letter on this day to the Chief Engineer (D.P.) of the Corporation requesting him to take over the said lands under reservation and grant necessary T.D.R. as per the regulations. Alongwith this covering letter, application form No. 2625 for D.R.C. duly filled-in and signed by the owners, among other documents was submitted. In the printed form being Form No.2625, it is set out that the Petitioner No.1 intends to surrender lands reserved for public purpose of R.G. in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations for grant of D.R.C. under Regulation 34 read with Appendix VII of the Regulations. A request was made that the lands affected by the reservation of R.G. may be taken over by the Corporation and the D.R.C. in lieu thereof may be issued to the owner. This application was signed by Mr.P.D. Lam, Executive Vice President (Corporate Service) C.E. (D.E. Division) of the Petitioner No.1. Sr.No.17 of the form accompanying the application and the remark made on behalf of the petitioners read as under:- This application alongwith the form was submitted through M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architects of Petitioner No.1. (ii) 08/10/1994 : M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter on this day to the Director (E.S. & P.) requesting him to approve the proposed overall development as mentioned in that letter and shown in the accompanying plan. (iii) 24/11/1994 :A letter was addressed by M/s. Worthy Enterprises on this day to the Superintendent of Gardens recording his visit alongwith Dy. Superintendent of Gardens. Alongwith that letter a set of drawings incorporating suggestions made by the Garden Department was enclosed with a request to forward the proposal to the Chief Engineer (D.P.) for approval. (iv) 03/12/1994 : Note put up by the Superintendent of Gardens on this day to the Executive Engineer, D.P. (E.S.). In that note, the departments no objection in principle for cutting, filling, leveling and terracing of the land proposed was recorded. A request was made to inform further development in future so as to enable the Garden Department to monitor the progress and take over the land for the purpose for which it is reserved. Further request was made to inform the costs of development of the said plot so as to find out some sponsorer to develop it through the Corporation. Further request was made to inform the costs of development of the said plot so as to find out some sponsorer to develop it through the Corporation. (v) 28/03/1995 : M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter on this day to the Superintendent of Gardens enclosing therewith a plan showing relocated R.G. reservation, which is being developed by the owner for handing it over to the Corporation free of costs. It was further set out that the owner intends to carry out the work of cutting, filling, leveling, terracing etc., before handing over the same as shown in the accompanying plan. A request was made to accord approval to the same at the earliest. (vi) 05/04/1995 : The Chief Engineer (D.P.) of the Corporation addressed a letter on this day to the Petitioner No.1 informing that the request to grant D.R.C.in lieu of surrender of lands under reservation will be further considered after compliance of the requirements set out therein. (vii) 06/04/1995 :M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter on this day to the Executive Engineer (D.P.) requesting him to give suggestions in respect of cutting, filling, leveling and terracing being carried out on the lands reserved for Municipal Primary School and R.G. so as to enable them to make necessary amendments. (viii) 27/05/1995 :The Dy. City Engineer (Planning & Design) (Sub.) addressed a letter on this day to M/s. Worthy Enterpriss setting out therein that he inspected the site on 23.05.1995 and the work was found completed as per the amended plans approved by his department and as per the relocation approved by the Director (E.S.& P.) alongwith the required cutting, filling, leveling, terracing. The completion certificate submitted by M/s. Worthy Enterprises in the approval of the work of cutting, filling, leveling, terracing was accepted. (ix) 07/06/1995 : M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter on this day to the Superintendent of Gardens requesting to intimate to the Executive Engineer, D.P. Department that the work of cutting, filling, leveling and terracing etc., was completed and that the work of development of garden is under progress and that the garden department has no objection if the proposal of the Petitioner No.1 for D.R.C./T.D.R. Is processed further. (x) 20/07/1995 : The Chief Engineer (D.P.) addressed a letter on this day to the Petitioner No.1 whereby the eligibility of the Petitioner No.1 to receive D.R.C. was confirmed subject to complying the requirements set out therein. (x) 20/07/1995 : The Chief Engineer (D.P.) addressed a letter on this day to the Petitioner No.1 whereby the eligibility of the Petitioner No.1 to receive D.R.C. was confirmed subject to complying the requirements set out therein. Petitioner No.1 was informed that on its complying with the requirements, necessary D.R.C. will be issued in its favour. (xi) 28/09/1995 : M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter on this day to the Assistant Engineer (Acquisition) setting out therein that the temporary site office and garden which was constructed on the plot reserved for R.G., is being used for constructing additional amenity and the land scaping of R.G. After completion of development of R.G., they will hand over the existing temporary site office to the Corporation for care taker of garden department for maintenance in future and if it is not required to the Corporation, they will demolish the same before granting D.R.C. (xii) 09/06/1995 :The Superintendent of Gardens put up the submission on this day to the Deputy Chief Engineer (D.P.) (E/S) informing that the work of cutting, filling, leveling and terracing of land under reservations for R.G. was completed as per the plan attached and he was requested to process the papers further for T.D.R. and inform his office after taking possession of the land by the Corporation. (xiii) 20/10/1995 :The Executive Engineer (S.D.) P. & D. E & S. addressed a letter on this day to M/s. Worthy Enterprises informing them that the site was inspected alongwith their representatives on 16.10.1995. The storm water drains were constructed on the land satisfactorily and as per the modified remarks issued vide letter dated 19.09.1995. He accordingly granted completion certificate for storm water drains only. (xiv) 08/11/1995 :M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter on this day to the Executive Engineer (D.P.) Eastern Suburbs, informing him that on the western boundary of the land under reservation, there are some hutment colonies and the residents of this area have been demanding an access of 4 to 5 ft. width to enable them to have access to the 90 ft. road so constructed. Along the compound wall they had constructed storm water drains of about 4 ft., and further they intend to construct 2nd wall in such a manner that about 5 ft. average width of access would be available. The said access would become a natural barrier for any further encroachment. road so constructed. Along the compound wall they had constructed storm water drains of about 4 ft., and further they intend to construct 2nd wall in such a manner that about 5 ft. average width of access would be available. The said access would become a natural barrier for any further encroachment. The request was therefore made to grant approval for access as well as for site office / store room and thereafter possession of the land may be taken. (xv) 07/12/1995 :M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter on this day to the Superintendent of Gardens informing that they have completed the work of cutting, filling, leveling, terracing of the R.G. and they have also got completion certificate for the same from the Garden Department. It was further informed that they now intend to develop/land scaping the R.G., as per the plan enclosed therewith for approval and no objection certificate. (xvi) 08.12.1995 :The Senior Manager of the Petitioner No.1 gave undertaking that the structures standing on the land reserved for the purpose of R.G. would be demolished within two years or immediately after completion of work of development of R.G. or as and when called upon to do so. (xvii) 09/12/1995 :On this date, Respondent No.1 handed over possession of the said lands under reservation. (xviii) 1 4/12/1995 :The Superintendent of Gardens addressed a letter on this day to M/s. Worthy Enterprises in response to their letter dated 07.12.1995 signifying no objection of his office for developing land scaping, land reserved for R.G., as per the plan enclosed alongwith the application. Alongwith this letter, he enclosed one copy of the plan duly approved for further necessary action. (xix) 20.12.1995 :M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter on this day to the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation setting out therein that they have complied with all the requirements for grant of T.D.R. against surrender of land under reservation for R.G. The request was made that D.R.C.s may be issued to the owners only. (xx) 28.12.1995 : Submissions put up by the Chief Engineer (D.P.) on this day to the Director (E.S. & P.) soliciting the orders for grant of D.R.C., in lieu of surrender of lands reserved for the purpose of R.G. In respect of Item No.16 of that submission viz. (xx) 28.12.1995 : Submissions put up by the Chief Engineer (D.P.) on this day to the Director (E.S. & P.) soliciting the orders for grant of D.R.C., in lieu of surrender of lands reserved for the purpose of R.G. In respect of Item No.16 of that submission viz. the additional remarks, it was set out therein that the R.G. under reference is being developed by the Petitioner No.1 as per the approval of Superintendent of Gardens dated 14.12.1995. In view of this, he sought Municipal Commissioner’s approval to issue two D.R.Cs. (i) with F.S.I. credit of 28347.30 sq. meters for the land bearing C.T.S.No.2B (part) and 3B of village Ghatkopar falling in ‘S’ Ward jurisdiction, (ii) with F.S.I. credit of 2710.00 sq. meters for the land bearing C.T.S.No.2B (part) of village Ghatkopar falling in ‘N’ Ward jurisdiction. On receipt of the Municipal Commissioner’s approval, two D.R.C.s alongwith copies will be prepared and put up for Municipal Commissioner’s signature. D.R.C.s will be issued to the owners only after submission of separate P.R. cards in the name of the Corporation. (xxi) 02.01.1996 :D.R.C.No.000047 in respect of F.S.I. 28347.30 sq.meters and D.R.C.No.000048 in respect of F.S.I.2710.00 sq. meters were issued. (xxii) 20/11/1996 :On behalf of M/s. Mayfair Housing, its partner Mr. N.A. Shah addressed a letter on this day to the Joint Commissioner of the Corporation setting out therein that they have already handed over the said lands on behalf of the owners The Petitioner No.1 - M/s. Godrej & Boycee manufacturing Co.Ltd., in lieu of T.D.R.in December, 1995. Before handing over the said lands to the Corporation, they had carried out various civil work, such as compound wall and gates, mesonary retaining wall, paved pathways, steps, terracing and leveling of the original hilly plot and also planting of trees in consultation and approval of the Superintendent of Gardens. This work had totally changed the face of the land from its original condition and it can be seen from the photographs enclosed therewith. It was further set out therein that the R.G. can be still further developed by proper planning and land scaping, for which, they have prepared necessary plans which were enclosed with the letter. The said land scaped plans were prepared by them with the help of experts in that field. It was further set out therein that the R.G. can be still further developed by proper planning and land scaping, for which, they have prepared necessary plans which were enclosed with the letter. The said land scaped plans were prepared by them with the help of experts in that field. After the work is completed, it will be rare and the most beautiful garden in that area or probably in the whole of Greater Mumbai and will go a long way in helping the cause of beautification of the Mumbai. Permission was sought by M/s. Mayfair Housing to take up the assignment of developing and maintaining the garden as envisaged and he therefore requested to accept offer to develop and maintain the same on behalf of M/s. Mayfair Housing for the period of 15 years. (xxiii) 01/01/1997 :The Deputy Municipal Commissioner submitted the note which was referred to in the submissions prepared by the Deputy Chief Engineer (D.P.) II dated 30.01.1997. In that submission it is set out that Shri. Nayan Shah, constituted attorney of the Petitioner No.1 had come forward to develop the amenities as provided in clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 in lieu of additional T.D.R. The permission for development of R.G. plot admeasuring 28467.71 has already been granted although the additional T.D.R. for the same is not admissible. Under Regulation 9, Table 4 of the Regulations, reservation could be developed either by the Corporation or by the owner of the land. Such reserved municipal plots could be allotted to NGOs for development and maintenance on terms and conditions prescribed by the Municipal Commissioner. As per the guidelines it was decided that the plots reserved for R.G., playgrounds, etc., having area of less than 5000 sq. meters will be developed and maintained by the Corporation. The reserved plot having more than 5000 sq. meters area will be allotted to the developers, Industrial Houses, NGOs by inviting bids for development and maintenance. He therefore solicited approval of the Additional Municipal Commissioner (C) to the proposal of the Superintendent of Gardens at the portion sidelined ‘X’. On that submission, the Chief Engineer (D.P.) made remarks to the effect that the guidelines prepared in this respect are mainly for allotting such plots for development as per the provisions of Regulation 9 where 15% F.S.I. is also permitted. On that submission, the Chief Engineer (D.P.) made remarks to the effect that the guidelines prepared in this respect are mainly for allotting such plots for development as per the provisions of Regulation 9 where 15% F.S.I. is also permitted. The proposal under reference is for developing the plot as R.G. only and maintaining, and it is not necessary to invite bids. On the contrary, the Corporation should welcome sponsorers to develop the amenities which are open for public. The request was therefore made that the proposal of Superintendent of Gardens under reference may be approved. (xxiv) 23.01.1998 : The Superintendent of Gardens addressed a letter on this day to M/s. Mayfair Housing informing that their request for allotment of R.G. for development and maintenance on payment of nominal lease amount of Re. 1 per annum has been sanctioned subject to terms and conditions set out therein. One of the conditions mentioned therein was that no T.D.R. will be given in lieu of the said plot. The allotment letter dated 23.01.1998 was accepted by M/s. Mayfair Housing and the agreement was executed between the Corporation and M/s. Mayfair Housing for the period of five years commencing from 23.01.1998 to 22.01.2003. As per clause 9 of the said agreement, Petitioner No. 2, the partner of M/s. Mayfair Housing specifically agreed and accepted that M/s. Mayfair Housing will not be entitled to any advantage including T.D.R. for development and maintenance of said R.G. It was further clarified by clause 10 of the said agreement that whenever Corporation decides to develop the R.G. In accordance with Regulation 9, by inviting bids, M/s. Mayfair Housing will have to compete with other bidders and will not get any advantage for the reason of developing and maintaining the said R.G. (xxv) 17.04.1998: Petitioner No.2 sent a letter on this day to the Chief Engineer (D.P.) setting out therein that they have developed the said lands as per the requirements of the Corporation and in consultation with the Superintendent of Gardens. The said R.G. developed by them is unique and one of the most beautiful gardens. The works carried out by them were not required in the normal cases for grant of T.D.R. and are extra over what is normally expected. They should therefore be compensated by granting additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. The said R.G. developed by them is unique and one of the most beautiful gardens. The works carried out by them were not required in the normal cases for grant of T.D.R. and are extra over what is normally expected. They should therefore be compensated by granting additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. In view of this, they applied for T.D.R. for the area equivalent to the development done by them i.e. for an area of 28347.30 sq. meters. Prescribed application form for grant of T.D.R.was submitted alongwith the said letter. The printed form bearing No.4992 that contained clause 17 and the remarks therein are as under:- for R.G., alongwith the printed application No. 4994 containing Sr.No.17 and the remark identical with that of earlier application dated 17.04.1998. (xxvi) 27.11.1998 :The Dy. City Engineer (D.P.) (II) by this letter informed that the request cannot be considered as per the prevailing policy. (xxvii) 03.11.2009 : Petitioner No.2 addressed a letter on this day to the Executive Engineer (D.P.) Eastern Suburb, as also the Chief Engineer (D.P.) requesting to grant him T.D.R. to the extent of 31057.30 sq. meters in view of his having constructed the amenity being the R.G. in accordance with the requirements and the specifications of the Corporation. Since there was no response this was followed by letter dated 23.07.2010. Ultimately on 28.09.2010 the present petition is instituted. 25. Mr. Chinoy invited our attention to the above referred correspondence and in particular; 1. A letter dated 07.06.1995 addressed by M/s. Worthy Enterprises to the Superintendent of Gardens informing that the work of development of garden is under progress. 2. A letter dated 28/09/1995 addressed by M/s. Worthy Enterprises to the Assistant Engineer (Acquisition) setting out therein that the temporary site office and garden constructed on the plot reserved for R.G., is being used for constructing additional amenity and the land scaping of R.G. 3. A letter dated 07.12.1995 addressed by M/s. Worthy Enterprises to the Superintendent of Gardens informing about completion of work of cutting, filling, leveling, terracing of the R.G. and further informing that they now intend to develop/land scaping the R.G., as per the plan enclosed therewith for approval and no objection certificate. 4. A letter dated 07.12.1995 addressed by M/s. Worthy Enterprises to the Superintendent of Gardens informing about completion of work of cutting, filling, leveling, terracing of the R.G. and further informing that they now intend to develop/land scaping the R.G., as per the plan enclosed therewith for approval and no objection certificate. 4. A letter dated 14.12.1995 addressed by the Superintendent of Gardens to M/s. Worthy Enterprises in response to their letter dated 07.12.1995 signifying no objection of his office for developing the land scaping, the land reserved for R.G. as per the plan enclosed alongwith the application. 5. Submissions dated 28.12.1995 put up by the Chief Engineer (D.P.) to the Director (E.S. & P.) soliciting the orders for grant of D.R.C., in lieu of surrender of lands reserved for the purpose of R.G. In respect of Item No.16 of that letter viz. the additional remarks, it was set out therein that the R.G. under reference is being developed by the Petitioner No.1 as per the approval of Superintendent of Gardens dated 14.12.1995. 6. Submissions dated 30.01.1997 made by the Deputy Chief Engineer (D.P.) II wherein reference is made to the note dated 01.01.1997 prepared by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner wherein it is recorded that the Petitioner No.2, constituted attorney to Petitioner No.1 came forward to develop the amenities as per clause 6 of Appendix II of Regulation 34 in lieu of the additional T.D.R. The permission for development of R.G. plot admeasuring 28467.71 sq. meters has already been granted although the T.D.R. for the same is not admissible. Said Mr. Shah has taken the work of development of R.G. in consultation with the Superintendent of Gardens and the development of garden is in the advanced stage. 26. Relying upon this correspondence, as also the submissions, Mr. Chinoy strenuously submitted that it establishes the fact that the petitioners have undertaken the development or the construction of amenity in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 with the approval of the authorities of the Corporation and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to the additional T.D.R. in the form of F.S.I. to the extent of 31057.30 sq. meters. 27. We are not at all satisfied with this submission. meters. 27. We are not at all satisfied with this submission. In the first place, in the note dated 03.12.1994 put up by the Superintendent of Gardens to the Executive Engineer, D.P. (E.S.), the Garden Department’s no objection in principle, for cutting, filling, leveling, terracing etc was recorded. A request was made to inform the costs of the development of the said plot so as to find out some sponsorers to develop it through the Corporation. This has obviously reference to Regulation 9 of the Regulations. Secondly, the above correspondence does not establish that the petitioners intended to avail additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. This is because in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34, the owner or the lessee who intends to develop or construct the amenity on the surrendered plot at his cost, has to approach either the Commissioner or the appropriate authority with the proposal, which, after due scrutiny and subject to such stipulations, as may be prescribed, the owner or the lessee has to carry out the construction or development to the satisfaction of the authorities of the Corporation. In the instant case, we have already noted that the petitioners had not submitted any proposal before availing of the additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. It is also important to note that in so far as the Garden Department is concerned, the Superintendent of Gardens is not the appropriate authority, but the appropriate authority is the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, under whose superintendence and jurisdiction, the Garden Department functions. Thirdly, M/s. Worthy Enterprises addressed a letter dated 20.12.1995 to the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation for grant of T.D.R. against the surrender of lands under reservation for R.G. and a request was made that the D.R.C.s may be issued to the owners only. If at all the petitioners were carrying on development on or after 07.06.1995, they would have certainly claimed additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. However, what was claimed was T.D.R. as per clause 5 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. If at all the petitioners were carrying on development on or after 07.06.1995, they would have certainly claimed additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. However, what was claimed was T.D.R. as per clause 5 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. It is also significant to note here that between 20.12.1995 & 20.11.1996 when M/s. May fair Housing addressed a letter, no material is brought on record by the petitioners to substantiate that the development/construction of amenity was carried out by them. Even the petitioners accepted the D.R.C.s dated 02.01.1996 without any protest. Fourthly, it is the petitioners own case in Paragraph No.3.6 of the petition that the Petitioner No.2 continued construction, development, land scaping of the amenity and in or about January 1998 the Petitioner No.2 completed the construction, development of the said amenity as per the requirements and specifications of the Respondents. As noted earlier, on 20.11.1996 M/s. May fair Housing which is a separate entity had submitted a proposal for development and maintenance of the R.Gs. Fifthly, having regard to clause 7 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34, D.R.C. can be issued only on satisfactory compliance with the conditions prescribed in Appendix VII. Considering all these circumstances on record, we are clearly satisfied that the petitioners have failed to establish that they have carried out any development. 28. On the other hand, Mr. Sakhare submitted that the petition raises several disputed questions of facts, inasmuch as the Corporation does not accept the claim of the petitioners that the petitioners or for that matter, either of the petitioners carried out any development on the amenity in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of the Regulations. He further submits that the appropriate authority in so far as the Garden Department is concerned is the Deputy Municipal Commissioner and not the Superintendent of Gardens. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the purported approvals/ sanctions given by the Superintendent of Gardens is of no consequence in so far as claiming T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34. We find substance in the submissions of Mr. Sakhare. 29. We have already indicated the correspondence exchanged between the parties as also the submissions made by the officers of the Corporation. We find substance in the submissions of Mr. Sakhare. 29. We have already indicated the correspondence exchanged between the parties as also the submissions made by the officers of the Corporation. Perusal of the letter dated 20.11.1996 addressed on behalf of M/s. Mayfair Housing, coupled with the letter dated 23.01.1998 and the agreement executed between M/s. Mayfair Housing and the Corporation, it would be abundantly clear that after the said lands were surrendered and the T.D.R. was claimed in terms of clause 5 of Appendix VII of the Regulations, neither of the petitioners carried out the development in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII. In fact, perusal of the letter dated 20.11.1996 would indicate that M/s. Mayfair Housing intended to develop and maintain the said lands by proper planning and land scaping, for which they had submitted necessary plans. The request of M/s. Mayfair Housing was accepted by the Corporation on 23.01.1998 with a specific condition that no T.D.R. will be given in lieu of the said lands. Pursuant to his letter, agreement was executed between M/s. Mayfair Housing and the Corporation which records that on 06.11.1997 Municipal Commissioner accorded sanction to allow the development and maintenance of the R.G. for the period of five years from 23.01.1998 to 22.01.2003. Clause 2 thereof recites that the firm shall develop the R.G. within six months from the date of its handing over to the firm. Clause 5 thereof further recites that the costs of development, improvement and maintenance of the R.G. including water charges, lighting and other rates, taxes levied on the plot from time to time, shall be borne by the said firm. Clause 9 provided that the firm shall not be entitled to any advantage including the T.D.R. for development and maintenance of R.G. This agreement was thereafter renewed for further period of five years on the same terms and conditions. 30. It is further relevant to note at this stage that on the earlier occasion while claiming T.D.R. against the surrender of the said lands in terms of clause 5 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34, the Petitioner No.1 had submitted a proposal dated 14.07.1994 through M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architects, enclosing therewith application form No.2625 for D.R.C. duly filed in and signed by the owners. At serial No.17 of the said printed form, when the owners were called upon to inform whether the reservation is proposed to be built upon as per the plans approved by the concerned authority as per clause 6 of Appendix VII. The response of the owners was that the said question does not arise as the reservation is for R.G. It is significant to note that before claiming additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34, neither Petitioner No.1 nor Petitioner No.2 filled in the printed form. It is also relevant to note that in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII when the owner develops or constructs the amenity on the surrendered plot at his costs, subject to such stipulations as may be prescribed by the Commissioner or the appropriate authority as the case may be, and to their satisfaction hands over the said developed/constructed amenity to the Commissioner/ appropriate authority, free of costs, he is entitled to the grant of further development rights in the form of F.S.I. equivalent to the area of construction/development done by him. In the first place, the petitioners have not filled in the printed form as was done earlier while claiming the T.D.R. as per clause 5. Secondly, the Commissioner or the appropriate authority, in the instant case the Dy. Municipal Commissioner, could not prescribe any stipulations and consequently, there is no question of either of the petitioners handing over the said developed /constructed amenity to their satisfaction. Under clause 7 of Appendix VII the D.R.C. will be issued only on the satisfactory compliance with the conditions prescribed in Appendix VII. 31. It is also relevant to note here that on the earlier occasion, when the Petitioner No.1 applied for grant of T.D.R. on surrender of lands reserved for R.G., after completion of the work, M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architects of the Petitioner No.1 submitted the completion certificate. The Dy. City Engineer (Planning & Design) (Sub.) under letter dated 27.05.1995 informed M/s. Worthy Enterprises that he inspected the site on 23.05.1995 and the work was found completed as per the amended plans approved by his Department and as per the relocation approved by the Director (E.S.& P.) alongwith the required cutting, filling, leveling and terracing. The completion certificate submitted by them was accepted. The completion certificate submitted by them was accepted. Thus, the completion certificate submitted by M/s. Worthy Enterprises, Architects of the Petitioner No.1 while claiming T.D.R.on surrender of said lands under reservation in terms of clause 5 of Appendix VII, is conclusive proof of the Petitioner No.1 complying with the stipulations prescribed by the Commissioner or the appropriate authority as the case may be and completing the said work to their satisfaction. The said letter recorded the satisfaction of the authority about the development/construction of amenity by the Petitioner No.1. As noted earlier, in the instant case, no such completion certificate is submitted by the Architects of the Petitioners and consequently, there was no question of acceptance of the completion certificate by the authorities of the Corporation. 32. Even otherwise, the Petitioner No.2 is not owner or the lessee of the said lands. He applied on 20.11.1996 to the Corporation for development/maintenance of the said lands. We have already indicted that the request was accepted with a specific condition that the Petitioner No.2 shall not claim any T.D.R. We are therefore satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioners have not established that either of them developed/ constructed the amenity in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII. 33. This is to be appreciated in the backdrop of the fact that the two applications were made on 17.04.1998 claiming the additional T.D.R. against the said lands in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII. The said request was turned down on 27.11.1998 and the present petition is instituted on 28.09.2010, i.e. almost after the period of 12 years. In our opinion, the petitioners have clearly abandoned their claim for additional T.D.R. in terms of clause 6 of Appendix VII. 34. In view thereof, we are clearly of the opinion that the petition is devoid of substance and the same deserves to be rejected. Hence, petition fails. Rule is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.