-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.646 OF 2008 Smita Shankar Nalekar & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.Sanjay Jain and Mr.Vishal Thaker i/b. Vinod Thaker for the petitioners. Mr.G.N.Salunke for respondent no.7. ... CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATE : JULY 01, 2008. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. T.P.S. No. III, Borivli, has come into force by publication dated 17.7.1995 with effect from 3.10.1995. The dispute between the parties is in respect of a portion 40 x 5. In respect of this dispute, the respondents have filed Writ Petition no.5735 of 2006 on the Appellate Side of this Court. The said petition is admitted and order of status quo has been passed. -: 2 :- 3. Final plot no.633 belongs to the petitioners. We are told at the Bar by the Advocates for both the sides that the disputed portion of 40 x 5 is a part of 633. However, the present respondent who is the petitioner in the above referred Writ Petition has contended that he is entitled for compensation and/or alternate accommodation of that part since he has constructed some part of it. 4. Thus, we find that in view of the concessions given by both the sides, the disputed portion of 40 x 5 is a part of final plot no.633. However, that part cannot be enjoyed by the present petitioner in view of the interim orders passed in the said Writ Petition wherein the parties are directed to maintain status quo. 5. Now the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr.Godbole makes a statement that the remaining plot no.633 is in possession of the petitioners and the petitioners are desirous of carrying out construction on that portion and, therefore, he submits that the Corporation may be directed to consider the petitioners’ application for I.O.D., ignoring the portion of 40 x 5 presently and the Corporation may consider the rest of the F.S.I. available on that and can consider grant of I.O.D. for construction of the building. He further states that the Corporation may consider such application and grant -: 3 :- concession in accordance with the D.C. Regulations. Mr.Salunke, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.7, states on instructions that he has no objection for granting such order in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, we pass the following order:- O R D E R (i) The petitioners shall submit fresh proposal seeking I.O.D. from the respondent-Corporation within a period of four weeks. (ii) On submission of such application, the Corporation shall scrutinise the same and if there are any deficiencies in the said application, those deficiencies shall be communicated to the petitioners by registered A/D. within a period of one week. (iii) The petitioners shall comply with the said deficiencies in the proposal/application within a period of two weeks thereafter. (iv) Thereafter, the Corporation shall decide the proposal/application for I.O.D., in accordance with law. In case the Corporation decides to reject the -: 4 :- proposal, the Corporation/authorities will pass a speaking reasoned order and that order shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two weeks by registered A/D. (v) While deciding the proposal/application, the Corporation shall bear in mind the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition no.5735 of 2006 filed by the respondent and the Corporation will not commit breach of such interim order passed in Writ Petition no.5735 of 2006. (vi) The claim of the petitioners to get possession of 40 x 5 portion is kept open and is subject to the decision in Writ Petition no.5735 of 2006 filed by the respondent. (vii) This Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)