JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Zaidy, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Patki, learned Addl. Government Pleader for Respondents. By consent of both the learned Advocates, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Zaidy, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Patki, learned Addl. Government Pleader for Respondents. By consent of both the learned Advocates, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Writ Petition is filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs : “(a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the letters Dated 21st June 2022 [Exhibit “N”] erroneously and illegally quantifying the amount allegedly payable towards “Change of user” and 10th October 2022 [Exhibit “P” hereto] issued by the 1st Respondent thereby rejecting the Petitioner’s application and the relief sought on the basis of the application submitted on 12th September 2022 (Exhibit “Q” hereto) in respect of the subject plot, bearing Sub-plot No.17-B of Final Plot no.17 of TPS Scheme VI of Mouje, Vile Parle, Taluka Andheri having corresponding CTS No.1612/2, situated at Shastri Nagar, Santacruz (W), Mumbai– 400 054, described in paragraph 1 of the Petition are erroneous bad in law and ought to be cancelled; (b) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or direction or order to call for the files and records of sub plot No.17B bearing TPS scheme No. Final plot No.17, C.T.S. No.1612/2 being the subject matter of registered Lease agreement Dated 28th December 2007 [Exhibit “A” hereto] and the application submitted on 12th September 2022 (Exhibit “Q” hereto) made by the Petitioner and after going through the same to forthwith direct Respondents No.1 and 2 to determine and quantify: charges for change of user at 3% on the basis of market value of the subject land prevalent in the year 2012 as per letter Dated 27th April 2012 being Exhibit “B” hereto; and premium at the rate of 25% for residential use on the basis of the market value prevalent in the year 2019 (when the application was made) for converting the leasehold land into Class Occupancy I; and Respondents 1 and 2 may pleased be directed that upon payment of the aforesaid amounts in the office of the 1st Respondent to forthwith issue an Order converting the subject leasehold plot into Occupancy class I in favour of the Petitioner as contemplated under Rule 3 (iv) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and leasehold land into Occupancy Class-I), Rules 2019; (c) for ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) above; (d) for costs; (e) Such further and other reliefs for direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem, just, equitable and convenient to grant.” 3. Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order Dated 10.10.2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 – Collector, Mumbai Suburban District on the Application Dated 12.09.2022 filed by the Petitioner in pursuance of the order Dated 19.04.2022 of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 7102 of 2021. 4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are outlined as under: 4.1. Petitioner is lessee of the leasehold plot of ‘G’ tenure admeasuring 232.44 sq. meters or thereabout together with the building / structure standing thereon bearing sub-plot No.17B of final plot No.17 of TPS Scheme VI of Mouje Vile Parle, Taluka Andheri having corresponding CTS No.1612/2 (for short “the subject plot”) described in paragraph No.1 of the Petition. A lease agreement Dated 28.12.2007 is granted by the Respondent No.2 - State Government of Maharashtra with respect to the subject plot for a period of 30 years commencing from 01.08.2005. 4.2. On 19.03.2012, Petitioner alongwith the lessees of the adjacent plots made a representation to the 1st Respondent for making change in use of the subject plot for residential user instead of industrial user. Respondent No.1 by letter Dated. 27.04.2012, addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra referred to the application of the Petitioner Dated 19.03.2012 for change in user of the subject plot and opined that there should be no objection for granting permission for change of user by charging 3 % premium of the prevailing market value and sought passing of a further order at the Government level. On 14/25.07.2012, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra submitted his opinion. By letter Dated 31.07.2012 the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department called upon the Chief Engineer (Development Plan) of the Municipal Corporation to submit a detailed report and opinion in that regard. On 01.12.2012 the Chief Engineer (Development Plan) opined that change of user of the subject plot required deletion of the designation of ‘service industry’ of the subject plot by following the procedure for modification prescribed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Pursuant thereto, the Municipal Corporation initiated the requisite process for change of user. 4.3. On 27.05.2019, Respondent No.2 – State Government issued a Notification deleting the designation of ‘service industrial’ estate on the subject plot and converted it to ‘residential zone’. 4.4. Pursuant thereto, the Municipal Corporation initiated the requisite process for change of user. 4.3. On 27.05.2019, Respondent No.2 – State Government issued a Notification deleting the designation of ‘service industrial’ estate on the subject plot and converted it to ‘residential zone’. 4.4. On 12.12.2012, State Government published a Government Resolution declaring its policy for renewal of leases and levy of annual lease rent upon conversion of leasehold rights into Occupancy Class I (ownership) and levy of conversion premium charges. Another Notification Dated 08.03.2019 was also published under which Rules of 2019 have been published for conversion, which apply to lands occupied under leasehold rights. 4.5. On the basis of the above, Petitioner addressed letters Dated 02.11.2019 and 23.11.2019 to the Respondent No.1 - Collector seeking conversion of his leasehold interest / right in the subject plot to Occupancy Class I i.e. freehold and called upon Respondent No.1 - Collector to determine the conversion premium charges. Since there was no response from the Respondent No.1 - Collector, Petitioner filed Writ Petition (L) No.7102 of 2022 in this Court wherein an order Dated 19.04.2022 was passed directing the Respondent No.1 – Collector to take a decision on the Petitioner’s application for conversion expeditiously. 4.6. After hearing the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 – Collector by letter Dated 21.06.2022, determined the premium payable at Rs.67,85,505/- for change of user from ‘service industrial’ to ‘residential’ @ 25% of the market value prevalent in the year 2019. It was directed that Petitioner would have to deposit the above amount and only thereafter Petitioner’s application for conversion from leasehold to Occupancy Class – I would be initiated. 4.7. On 01.08.2022, Petitioner addressed a letter to Respondent No.1 - Collector stating that Petitioner submitted application for change of user on 19.03.2012 and therefore conversion charges were to be calculated @ 3% of the market value as prevalent in the year 2012 (date of application) as per Government policy for change of user. 4.7. On 01.08.2022, Petitioner addressed a letter to Respondent No.1 - Collector stating that Petitioner submitted application for change of user on 19.03.2012 and therefore conversion charges were to be calculated @ 3% of the market value as prevalent in the year 2012 (date of application) as per Government policy for change of user. A further application was made by Petitioner on 12.09.2022, stating that conversion charges for change of user shall be paid by Petitioner @ 3% on the basis of market value of the subject plot prevalent in the year 2012 as application was made in the year 2012 and premium for conversion of leasehold land to Occupancy Class – I on the basis of the market value prevalent in the year 2019 shall be paid @ 25% since the application for conversion was made in the year 2019. 4.8. Both the aforesaid applications viz; Dated 01.08.2022 and 12.09.2022 have been rejected by Respondent No.1 by the impugned communication Dated 10.10.2022. 4.9. Being aggrieved by the above rejection, Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 5. Mr. Zaidy, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner would submit that admittedly Petitioner’s application for change of user from ‘service industry’ to ‘residential user’ was made in the year 2012 and therefore for computation of the premium payable for change of user, valuation of the subject plot prevalent in the year 2012 has to be considered, for the purpose of determining the 3% charges thereon which has been upheld by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yogesh Bhika Choudhary Vs. The State of Maharashtra, WP No.3019 of 2016 decided on 28.09.2017, followed by another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kumodini Govindaji Doshi & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, WP No.7600 of 2017 decided on 04.02.2019. 5.1 He would submit that the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs Mahajan Industries Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 10 SCC 203 has held that the material date for calculating the conversion premium has to be the date of the original application and not any date subsequent thereto. He would submit that admittedly there is no violation of the lease conditions in the present case and therefore apart from change of user, Petitioner is entitled to conversion of the subject plot into Occupancy Class- I also. He would submit that admittedly there is no violation of the lease conditions in the present case and therefore apart from change of user, Petitioner is entitled to conversion of the subject plot into Occupancy Class- I also. He would submit that for conversion of leasehold land into Occupancy Class- I as per Petitioner’s application made in 2019, Petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the charges @ 25% of the market value as prevalent in the year 2019. Hence he would submit that Petitioner’s application Dated 01.08.2022 followed by the further application Dated 12.09.2022 should be granted and allowed and the Respondents should be directed to accept the conversion charges for change of user @ 3% on the basis of market value of the subject plot prevalent in the year 2012 and premium for conversion from leasehold land into Occupancy Class- I on the basis of the market value prevalent in the year 2019 @ 25% for residential use. 6. PER CONTRA, Mr. Patki, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents has drawn my attention to the Affidavit-in-Reply Dated 02.11.2023 filed by the Respondent No.1 and would contend that the Petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned communication Dated 10.10.2022 rejecting the Petitioner’s applications before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and therefore the present Petition is not maintainable. 6.1. He would submit that in the present case, in the year 2012 on the date of application made by the Petitioner for seeking conversion of change of user, there was no policy in existence or prevalent at the then time and it is only in the year 2019 that the policy has been enacted by the State Government under which premium for change of user has been prescribed. Hence, he would submit that even though the application was made in the year 2012, in the present case, Petitioner is required to deposit the premium for conversion charges on the basis of the market value in the year 2019. 6.2. Hence, he would submit that even though the application was made in the year 2012, in the present case, Petitioner is required to deposit the premium for conversion charges on the basis of the market value in the year 2019. 6.2. Next, he would submit that the decision to call upon the Petitioner to pay the conversion charges has been taken as per the prevailing policy of the State Government, on the basis that during the relevant period there was no existing policy of the State Government for conversion of tenure from Class- II category to Class- I category and the said policy has come into effect by Government Resolution Dated 18.02.2019 and the Petitioner is therefore required to pay the same as per the prevalent policy. He would therefore submit that the reliefs sought by the Petitioner cannot be granted and the Petitioner is liable to pay the conversion charges and the change of user premium on the basis of the market value of the subject plot as prevalent in the year 2019 only. Hence he would submit that the present Writ Petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard Mr. Zaidy, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Patki, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents and perused the pleadings and record of the case. Submissions made by the learned Advocates have received due consideration of this Court. 8. In the present case, it is seen that there is no denial but a clear admission by the Respondents, in their Affidavit-in-reply that on 19.03.2012, an application was filed by the Petitioner for conversion of the tenure into Occupancy Class- I and since there was no existing policy in place at the then time, no decision was taken on the said application. However, it is pertinent to note that after the said application was filed seeking conversion in the year 2012, the Respondent No.1 - Collector by its letter Dated 27.04.2012 clearly opined that there should be no objection for granting permission for change in user by charging 3% premium of the prevalent market value. At the then time on 14./25.07.2012, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra submitted his opinion and by letter Dated 31.07.2022 the Urban Development Department sought a detailed opinion and report from the Chief Engineer (Development Plan) in that regard. At the then time on 14./25.07.2012, the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra submitted his opinion and by letter Dated 31.07.2022 the Urban Development Department sought a detailed opinion and report from the Chief Engineer (Development Plan) in that regard. It is further seen that immediate steps were taken by the Municipal Corporation to seek change of user from the year 2012 itself so that the existing designation of ‘service industrial’ on the subject plot was deleted and it was converted to ‘residential’ user. These facts are not denied and are admitted by both parties. 9. In the instant case, it is seen that the subject plot is described as sub-plot No. 17B of final plot no.17 of TPS Scheme VI of Mouje Vile Parle, Taluka Andheri bearing CTS NO. 1612/2 situated at Shastri Nagar, Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400 054. As observed above, application seeking change of user was made by Petitioner in the year 2012 alongwith the adjacent plot holders. One such adjacent plot holder namely occupant of CTS No. 1612/1 in similar circumstances seeking change of user and conversion approached this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.33728 of 2022. This Court by judgment Dated 20.10.2023 passed a detailed and reasoned order holding that the Petitioner therein was entitled to change of user on payment of 25% of the market value of the subject plot as prevalent in the year 2012, considering that the application for conversion by the lessee was made in the year 2012. Further, it was also held that the Petitioner therein was entitled to conversion from Occupancy Class- II to Occupancy Class- I on payment of the conversion premium @ 25% of the market value prevalent in the year 2019 as per Government Resolution Dated 18.11.2019. In so far as the aforementioned two issues are concerned, the facts in the present case are absolutely identical and similar and therefore the decision of this Court in the case of Major General Rohinton Soli Jambusarwalla Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., Decided on 20.10.2023 in WP(L) No. 33728 of 2022 squarely covers the present case of the Petitioner. 10. It is seen that the Supreme Court in the case of Mahajan Industries Ltd. (3rd supra) was faced with determination of the material date to be considered for imposing conversion charges for land use of the property. 10. It is seen that the Supreme Court in the case of Mahajan Industries Ltd. (3rd supra) was faced with determination of the material date to be considered for imposing conversion charges for land use of the property. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court which had framed and formulated the following question for consideration:- “What is the right point of time (crucial date) which should be considered as the basis for grant of permission for the change of user (conversion) of the property in question from residential to multi-storey commercial building?” 11. The Supreme Court held that, it has to be the date of receipt of application for conversion of land use. In the present case, the date of receipt of application seeking conversion by the Petitioner is 19.03.2012 which is an admitted position by the Respondents. The fact that at the then time there was no prevalent policy cannot be a ground to say that though the said application was acted upon by the statutory authorities, the conversion charges would be payable as per the prevalent market value of the year 2019 when the policy has been enacted. Hence in the present case, the conversion charges for the land use have to be calculated on the basis of the market value as prevalent in the year 2012. It is seen that, there is a Government Resolution Dated 12.12.2012 in place which provides for Rules for transfer of lease for change of user and unearned income in the case of transfer of lease is required to be calculated @ 25% of the market value. 12. In view of the decision given by this Court in the case of Major General Rohinton Soli Jambusarwalla (4th supra), no different view can be adopted in the present case. 12. In view of the decision given by this Court in the case of Major General Rohinton Soli Jambusarwalla (4th supra), no different view can be adopted in the present case. Hence, the impugned communication Dated 10.10.2022 at Exhibit ‘Q’ - Page No.119 of the Petition issued by the Respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside with a direction to the Petitioner to pay and deposit the amount of conversion charges @ 25% of the market value of the subject plot prevalent in the year 2012 for change of user which is already sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner by the statutory authorities and the conversion premium @ 25% of the market value prevalent in the year 2019 for conversion from Occupancy Class - II (leasehold land) to Occupancy Class - I (freehold) which is on the basis of the relevant date of applications made by the Petitioner in the year 2012 and 2019 respectively. 13. Once the aforesaid amounts are deposited by the Petitioner, the Respondents shall immediately follow the due process of law for effecting conversion and change of user of the subject plot and issue the necessary process within a period of 8 weeks from the date of payment / deposit. 14. With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.