Facts: The Petitioners, a proposed Co-operative Housing Society and a developer, sought to implement a Slum Rehabilitation (SR) Scheme on land owned by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MCGM). The land was reserved for public purposes, including a municipal office and disaster management facilities. In December 2021, the MCGM issued a conditional No Objection Certificate (NOC), followed by a Letter of Intent (LOI) from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in November 2022. These documents required the developer to submit feasible building plans that integrated the municipal requirements, specifically a minimum floor plate area. After multiple meetings and a show cause notice, the MCGM determined that the developer failed to provide viable plans for the municipal building and had breached the NOC conditions. Consequently, the Additional Municipal Commissioner passed an order on 10 January 2024, cancelling the NOC and deciding that the MCGM would undertake the construction and rehabilitation at its own cost.Procedural Posture: The Petitioners initially challenged the cancellation before the High Court, which dismissed the petition on the grounds of alternative remedy. This was challenged via a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, directing it to decide the matter on its merits regarding the legality and validity of the NOC withdrawal. The matter was thus re-heard by the High Court.Issue: Whether the MCGM was legally justified in cancelling the NOC granted for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme due to the developer's failure to comply with conditional requirements regarding the construction of public amenities.Holding: Yes, the cancellation was legal and valid.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the MCGM, as the landowner, possesses a preferential right to develop its land, which is of paramount importance in SR Schemes. Slum dwellers and developers do not have independent or higher rights than the owner. The evidence demonstrated a "lackadaisical attitude" by the developer, who failed to submit feasible plans for over a year despite specific conditions in the NOC and LOI regarding the municipal office's dimensions. The Court emphasized that an NOC is conditional and not an irrevocable grant of rights. Since the developer admitted that constructing the building as per the MCGM's requirements was not "feasible", the breach of conditions was established. The Court upheld the principle that a landowner's right to develop cannot be usurped by a developer who fails to meet the prescribed obligations within a reasonable timeframe.