wp3583-84-86.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3583 OF 2011 Vijay J. Jaiswal .. Petitioner Versus Administrator & Divisional Commissioner & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3584 OF 2011 Ajay J. Jaiswal .. Petitioner Versus Administrator and Divisional Commissioner & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3586 OF 2011 Ajay J. Jaiswal .. Petitioner Versus Administrator & Divisional Commissioner & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.G.Damle with Mr.Ghadigaonkar i/b. R.A.Yadav for petitioners Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Kishore Jain and Ms.Nisha Parmar for respondent No.5 Mr.M.M.Malvankar for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 6th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] When these petitions were placed before the learned Vacation Judge and today, Mr.Thorat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for wp3583-84-86.doc 2 respondent – developer brought to my notice that the petitioners have vacated their existing accommodation so as to enable the developer to demolish it. Thereafter, the same has been demolished and petitioners have been rehabilitated and rehoused as and by way of permanent alternate accommodation. Petitioners have taken possession of the same and at their request certain alterations are being carried out. He submits that the area that has been given to the petitioners and allotted as permanent alternate accommodation is as per the scheme and terms and conditions of the permissions granted by the Authorities. 2] However, Mr.Damle learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the petitioners entitlement is in terms of the agreement which have been executed by them with the developer and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to commensurate area and that too in the saleable component. 3] To my mind, once the orders under challenge have been implemented and executed so also the structures are demolished and now new structure is erected on site in which the petitioners have been given accommodation and particularly possession thereof has also been taken, there is no warrant for interference in writ jurisdiction. If there is any dispute about entitlement of the petitioners which they wish to wp3583-84-86.doc 3 agitate, they are free to adopt such proceedings as are permissible in law. All contentions in that behalf of both sides are kept open. 4] Petition dismissed in the light of the above noted developments. Petitioners’ counsel upon taking instructions from one of the petitioners states that the petitioners have not taken possession as stated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for developer. Be that as it may. I do not wish to enter in that controversy as I have clarified that the dispute about entitlement can be agitated even after disposal of these petitions. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)