: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.244 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.270 OF 2008 IN L.C.SUIT NO.409 OF 2008 Ravindra J. More ....Appellant V/s. M/s.Spark Developers & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.A.S. Anand i/b Ms.Smita Donde for the Appellant. Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Sanjiv A. Sawant for Respondent No.1. Mr.Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No.3. Ms.Geeta Joglekar for Respondent No.4 (BMC). Mr.N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Rajiv Matkar for Respondent No.5. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. 2. The Appellant has challenged an order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Bombay Municipal Corporation as a competent authority under the Slum Rehabilitation Act. As against this order, the proceedings have already : 2 : been adopted under the said Act. This it was alleged was not even disclosed in the suit. 3. Further the scheme involves redevelopment of the property. The society comprises of 150 members of which 135 members have already accepted a sum of Rs.5000/- per month by way of alternate accommodation. The entire project is held up as the present Appellants who are six in numbers have demanded only alternate accommodation. 4. Though the L.O.I. refers to temporary transit accommodation, a unanimous resolution was passed by the society accepting cash in lieu of transit accommodation. Faced with this, it was contended that the signature of the Appellant’s wife was forged. It is difficult to accept this contention at this stage. 5. Admittedly it is not possible to provide alternate accommodation at the premises as a major part falls under a proposed D.P. Road. The Appellants were the occupants of structures. Under Regulation 1.12 of the D.C. Rules, the vacant land tenure stand terminated. : 3 : 6. Ultimately each of the members including the Appellants will get 225 sq.ft. of the redeveloped property on the same property which today is worth an enormous amount. The grant of any injunction would be detrimental not only to the 135 members who have accepted the scheme but even to the Appellants themselves. 7. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. The order shall remain stayed for a period of four weeks from today. Needless to add that in the event of no interim orders being obtained, the Respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.