JUDGMENT
M.L. Pendse, J.
1. The first petitioner is a Company, while the second petitioner is a Director and shareholder of the said Company. The petitioners purchased an area of land admeasuring approximately 3776.47 sq. yards situated at Mahim and bearing Plot No. 274 by a Conveyance Deed dated June 17, 1946. The Government of Bombay decided to implement the provisions of the Town Planning Act, and accordingly the Town planning Scheme Bombay City No. IV Mahim Area was duly sanctioned under section 51 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. The final scheme, after necessary steps were taken under the provisions of the Act, came into effect on August 15, 1963. Under the final scheme the petitioners were allowed final Plot No. 942 admeasuring an area approximately 3883 sq. yards. The final plot comprised of the old Plot No. 274 and certain portion of old Plot No. 275. The petitioners were also required to pay an amount of Rs. 22,602.60 towards the contribution under the final scheme. The petitioners requested the Corporation to implement the scheme and hand over actual vacant possession, but the Corporation declined to do so on one or the other grounds and that failure has led to filing of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a relief of writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to implement the scheme and hand over vacant possession.
2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 75 Bombay Law Reporter 35 and in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court consisting of the Chief Justice Kantawala and Mr. Justice Tulzapurkar, as he then was on April 9/10, 1973 in (Appeal No. 135 of 1969) and in view of the decision of Mr. Justice Deshmukh, as he then was, in (Miscellaneous petition No. 288 of 1970 of November 23,1977), it is no longer in dispute that it is the statutory duty of the Corporation to put the allottee of the final plot in actual possession.
3. Mr. Kamat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, points out that the petitioners have not paid the amount of contribution and unless that amount is paid, this Court should not issue the writ as claimed by the petitioners. The submission is correct. On behalf of the petitioners it is stated that the amount of contribution along with the interest, if any, would be paid to the Corporation within a period of three months from today. In case such contribution is paid, then the Corporation is bound to enforce the scheme and hand over vacant possession of final plot to the petitioners.
4. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the respondent Corporation is directed to enforce the final scheme and put the petitioners in actual vacant possession of final Plot No. 942 within a period of one year from the date of deposit of the contribution amount. In case such amount is not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the Corporation is not bound to perform its duty and put the petitioners in possession. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.