: 1 : lpa.52.2011...sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.52 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.438 OF 2011 Pandey Shanti Ramakant ... Petitioner V/s. The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner & Ors. ... Respondents a/w LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.53 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.435 OF 2011 Pramila Premnath Dubey ... Petitioner V/s. The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner & Ors. ... Respondents LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.54 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.437 OF 2011 Mane Vaijanta Anand ... Petitioner V/s. The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Y.E. Moomen i/b Ms.M.B. Gawde for Appellants Mr.M.M. Malvankar for Resp. No.1 Mr.V.Patil, G.P., for Resp. State Mr.Prasad Dhakephalkar i/b Chirag Balsara, Aftab Diamondwala, Sheetal Angane & Mohanish Chaudhari i/b Divya Shah Associates for Resp. No.6 CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATED: 28th MARCH, 2011 : 2 : lpa.52.2011...sxw P.C.: 1. These appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated February 17, 2011 in Civil Writ Petition Nos.435 of 2011, 438 of 2011 and 437 of 2011. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that no case is made out by the present appellants for interference with the order passed by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner. It is further found that 1820 people have already been shifted to the alternate accommodation which was offered and the construction has already been started. Respondent Nos.5 & 6 have already offered transit accommodation, a list of which is given at page 74 of the compilation. On behalf of Respondent Nos.5 & 6, even undertakings are also given. 2. Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.6 has also given an undertaking on behalf of his client by making a statement that Respondent Nos.5 & 6 shall enter into a registered agreement with the petitioners after the rehabilitation buildings are ready and specific flats will be allotted to the petitioners. Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are directed to act on the said undertaking and the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the said undertaking is to be treated as undertaking given to the Court. If alternate accommodation is not offered as per the statement, it will be open to the appellants to take out contempt proceedings. Suffice it to say that when alternate accommodation has already been offered and when about 1820 people have already been shifted, there is no reason to halt the development activities undertaken by Respondent Nos.5 and 6 especially when the appellants are going : 3 : lpa.52.2011...sxw to get alternate accommodation in the newly constructed premises at site. It is also pointed out by Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar that in order to carry out the project properly, even the R.G. area is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of carrying out development work effectively. In our view, the order of the learned Single Judge is not required to be interfered as the interest of the appellants is protected as they are going to be given transit accommodation and various sites have been shown to them as per page 74 and in view of the undertaking of the Respondent No.6 through the learned Senior Counsel that on completion of the project, alternate premises will be offered in the newly constructed premises to the appellants, the appeals are not required to be entertained. The appellants are given one months' time to hand over possession of the existing site and to shift to transit camp. 3. Subject to the same, the appeals are dismissed. The statement of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.6 is accepted. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)