1 APP(L).506.10 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO.506 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.47 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2276 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.________ OF 2010 S.R.Tambe and others Appellants versus Godi Kamgar Sahakari Griha Sanstha Ltd. and others Respondents Mr.M.M.Vashi for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.G.Kudale for respondent nos.3 to 14. Ms.V.S.Gharpure for respondent-BMC. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17th September 2010 PC : 1. In our order dated 4th September 2010 we had recorded that respondent nos.1 and 2 owe the Municipal Corporation a further sum of Rs.43,51,324/- towards property tax and Rs.4,47,363/- towards water tax over and above the amount of Rs.45,10,925/- which is already paid by the said respondents to the Municipal Corporation on 23rd August 2010. 2. Mr.Vashi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 states 2 APP(L).506.10 that the aforesaid amounts have now been paid to the Municipal Corporation. The amount of Rs.43,51,324/- has been paid vide receipt No.1378579 dated 7.9.2010 and amount of Rs.4,47,363/- has been paid vide receipt nos.1386145/46/47/48 respectively. The said receipts are placed on record of this appeal. 3. In view of the above, there can be no impediment now to the Municipal Corporation in providing the water connection to tower C-1. Accordingly, the Municipal Corporation shall supply water connection to tower C-1 within one week from today. 4. As regards direction to the appellants to shift to tower C-1, by our order dated 4th September 2010, we had directed the appellants to shift to tower C-1 up to 26th September 2010 and no further extension will be granted. The said direction stands and the appellants shall comply with the same. 5. The attempt being made by the learned advocate for the appellants to seek a review of the said direction is rejected. 6. In view of the fact that an affidavit dated 13th September 2010 has been filed by Mr.S.S.Badwaik, Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation stating that the Building Proposal Department has granted Occupation Certificate to tower C-1. A copy of the said certificate has been produced at Exhibit-1 to the said affidavit. The learned advocate for 3 APP(L).506.10 the appellants seeks to argue that the Occupation Certificate, a copy whereof is produced along with the affidavit of the Municipal Corporation, cannot be considered to be a valid Occupation Certificate. 7. We do not propose to entertain the above contention, because the Municipal Corporation has itself filed the affidavit stating that the Occupation Certificate has been granted to tower C-1 and, therefore, it is not open for the Municipal Corporation to raise any objection in future. 8. In the light of our earlier orders and considering that we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that barring the appellants, all others have accepted the redevelopment scheme and they must abide by the majority decision, we dispose off the appeal. All the more, because the new construction is ready and available for immediate occupation. Further it is having all the basic amenities as well. Hence, the appeal stands disposed off in terms of our directions. No costs. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)