1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.57 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2443 OF 2006 M/s. Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd. And another ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Mr.Vishal Sugdare i/b Yamin Bhansali & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narendra Walavalkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shobha Ajithkumar for the BMC – Respondents 2 to 5. Ms. Rajani Iyer, Senior Advocate with M. Niranjan Lopasia i/b Niranjan & Co. for Respondents 6(a) to 6(d). .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 7th May, 2009. P.C. : At the hearing of the Contempt Petition, counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation stated before the Court that the encroachments on the development plan road have been almost 2 completely shifted save and except for the shifting of certain live electrical wires for which the B.E.S.T. Undertaking has been moved for securing their removal. The learned counsel states that this exercise shall be completed in any event by 1st June, 2009. It is also common ground between all the learned counsel appearing before the Court that the offending structure on final plot No.879 has also been demolished in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench on 14th February, 2008. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Counsel appearing for Respondents 6 to 6(d) and counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation have agreed in stating before the Court that a demarcation shall be carried out of final plot No.878, final plot No.879 and the development plan road by requisitioning the services of the city survey officer. This exercise shall, it is clarified by consent, be completed on or before 1st June, 2009. The Municipal Corporation shall communicate a copy of the present order to the City Survey Office which shall extend necessary co-operation for compliance. On the request of counsel appearing for Respondents 6 to 6(d) it is also clarified that there has been no occasion for this Court to render any adjudication upon such rights 3 including of occupancy as may be claimed by the aforesaid Respondents which the said Respondents would be at liberty to pursue in an appropriate forum in accordance with law. Finally, it would be necessary to clarify that the directions issued by this Court on 23rd April, 2009 only operated to determine the modalities for compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench and would not in any manner affect any adjudication on the substantive rights of the parties. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. *****