1 mss APPL+537 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINALCIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL(L) NO. 537 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1922 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 1886 OF 2010 VANDANA V. KADAM & ORS. .. .. .. APPELLANTS Vs. M/s. HARI OM DEVELOPERS & ORS. .. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Vinay Hegde for the appellants Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Mr. J. G. Agarwal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mr. R. J. Mane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED: 4/10/2010 P.C. The appellants are original plaintiffs. They have filed the instant suit against 1st respondent M/s. Hari Om Developers (“the 2 mss APPL+537 developers” for short) and others challenging the alleged fraud and malpractices adopted by the developers and other defendants like the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the Addl. Collector and the Deputy Collector in sanctioning the slum rehabilitation scheme and in seeking to implement it by alleged illegal modes. 2. The appellants took out the instant notice of motion inter alia for restraining the defendants from compelling the appellants from vacating the existing tenements which are in their occupation. Learned Single Judge has by the impugned order denied ad-interim relief to the appellants and hence this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length. He submitted that the appellants are not members of any society. He submitted that no society was formed in respect of C.T.S. No. 201, 202 & 202/1 to 32 of village Mogra, Andheri. The developer has initiated the scheme on land bearing C.T.S. No. 80 and 81 which is at a considerable distance from their tenements situated on C.T.S. No. 201, 202 & 202/1 to 32. Counsel submitted that in any event the said lands are divided by existing 90 feet D. P. Road. Counsel submitted that no consent of the appellants was obtained in respect 3 mss APPL+537 of the said scheme. There is no correspondence between the appellants and the respondents in respect of the said scheme. Counsel submitted that the amalgamation is obtained by practicing fraud. 4. It is not possible to disturb the impugned order which appears to us to be well reasoned. Admittedly scheme in respect of plot No. 201 is sanctioned vide order dated 4/8/2004. Name of each of the appellants appeared in Annexure II confirming each of the appellants entitlement to tenement admeasuring 225 sq. ft. The appellants case that they were unaware about the amalgamation order is not substantiated. We are informed that Rehabilitation building is constructed. Occupation certificate is granted. By drawing lots flats have been allotted to all including the appellants. Except the appellants, who are 27 in number all others have shifted to the new tenements. The appellants appear to have adopted a non- cooperative approach. The scheme of 2005 is being challenged by filing a suit in 2010. Since the scheme is complete and large number of persons have taken benefit thereof, the appellants are not entitled to the relief prayed for by them. 4 mss APPL+537 5. The appeal is dismissed. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R. V. MORE, J.)