-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 196 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1899 OF 2005 Ms.Shamim A. Khot and others ...Petitioners versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and another ...Respondents Mr. Khatri, instructed by Mr. G.K.Wadhwa for the petitioners in support. Mr. K.N. Gaikwad for respondent No.1 to show cause. Mr. N.Pandit,AGP, for respondent No.2. Mr. P.M. Havnur for the applicant. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 29, 2009. P.C. This Notice of Motion is preferred by the petitioners in a disposed of matter being Writ Petition No. 1899 of 2005. It is the prayer of the petitioners that in the Final Town Planning Scheme No. 674, Mahim, Mumbai, the petitioners are required to be handed over vacant possession of the plot as per the provisions contained in the Final Town Planing Scheme. The grievance of the petitioners is that the authority has not implemented the scheme for putting the petitioners in possession and have failed to discharge its duty under the law. It is submitted that since the area in question is encroached by encroachers, the authority is not in a position to hand over vacant and peaceful -2- possession of the area as per the Town Planning Scheme. 2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 submit that all attempts will be made to do the needful in the matter as the Corporation is required to implement the Town Planning Scheme without any further delay. Mr. Havnur, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that in the disposed of petition, his clients were in occupation of the portion of the area but in the present Notice of Motion they are not joined as parties and having come to know about the fact that these proceedings are adopted, he is appearing for his clients. He submitted that the his clients were in possession prior to the cut off date and, therefore, they are entitled to get alternate place as per the Rules and Regulations. In the present case we are not concerned with the aforesaid aspect as it is for the competent authority to consider the claim of the said persons, whether they are entitled to get some benefit in this behalf or whether they were there before the cut off date. In this application, we are only directing the Corporation to implement the Town Planning Scheme as the same is not required to be kept dormant and is required to be implemented as the scheme is having a statutory effect. More so, when there is already an order in this behalf, in our view, the Corporation is required to act expeditiously in the matter of implementing the scheme in question. The rights of occupants, if any, as pointed out earlier, is to be adjudicated by the competent authority and it is -3- for the authority to act in accordance with law in this behalf, if not adjudicated so far. We are not expressing any opinion on this aspect. 3. Since monsoon is already started, perhaps those who are in occupation are required to make alternate arrangements. Therefore, the Corporation is granted four months time from today to implement the scheme. 4. Notice of Motion is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.