1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3822 OF 2006. Kantilal S/o Dwarkadas Shah deceased through L.Rs. Sachin S/o Kantilal Shah and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Mr.D.V.Soman, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ram Shinde, advocate holding for Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.P.P.More, advocate for the Respondent No.4. Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate for the Respondent No.5, Mr.V.D.Sonawane, advocate for the Respondent No. 4. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 19.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2 2. The deceased petitioner was allegedly a member of the Respondent No.5 Cooperative Society. He was denied plot during distribution. He submitted that he was entitled to receive the plot. The dispute was decreed and he was declared to be a member of the Tenants Cooperative Housing Society i.e. Respondent No.5. The Cooperative Court further held that he was entitled to get allotment of plot from the Respondent No.5. He filed contempt proceedings and ultimately this Court directed that decree shall be executed. In the course of the execution of the decree for mandatory injunction, eventually, plot No.41 was attached and given to the deceased petitioner. It was subsequently revealed that plot No.41 was reserved by the Cidco and no construction could be permitted thereon. Needless to say, the transaction itself was invalid and without any practical use to the deceased petitioner. It was found that there was construction and a Hall, earmarked as Community Hall and the said construction was also unauthorised. Faced with these difficulties, the deceased petitioner filed the present petition 3 against the order rendered by the Civil Judge (S.D.), whereby the three applications filed by him (Exh.84, Exh.92, Exh.95) were rejected. 3. Having heard learned counsel and on going through the relevant material, I am of the opinion that the deceased petitioner could not be left without remedy. If the decree for mandatory injunction could not be executed by allotment of the plot then alternatively it could be executed by directing payment of the market value of the plot of the same size i.e. 3000 Sq. fts. The alternative relief could be considered by the Court. The principle of "Ubi jus ibi idem remedium" ought to be taken into consideration and the deserving party can not be left without redressal of the legal grievance. In this view of the matter, the trial Court is directed to reconsider the applications and execute the decree, if required, by considering request of the petitioners to attach the properties of the Respondent No.5 if the relevant consideration alongwith appropriate interest amount is not paid. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 4 If the alternate arrangement is made then the allotment of the plot No.41 in favour of the petitioner may be revoked. The trial Court shall consider the applications of the petitioners within a period of six (6) months and to decide the same on merits. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp382206