1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2293 OF 2009 Darshan Developers and Anr. : Petitioner versus The Chief Officer Mumbai Repair and Reconstruction Board and ors. : Respondents. Mr. Yadunath Choudhari i/by Reena Salunkhe for the Petitioner Mr. A Grover i/by Mr. Prakash Mahadi for Respondent Nos.5 and 7. Ms. Kejal Kamdar for Respondent Nos. 6, 8 and 9 Mr. P G Lad, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Ms V S Gharpure for Respondent No.4. CORAM : J N PATEL & C L PANGARKAR, J DATED : 2nd March 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. This Petition has been filed by the Developers for seeking a direction against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to initiate and complete action under Section 95-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “The MHADA Act”) against Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 so that Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 can be evicted and shifted from Room No.02, Structure No.105-B to the new premises i.e. flat No.301 admeasuring 320 sq. ft. carpet area in the said newly constructed building known as “Ganesh Darshan in `B’ Wing on 3 rd Floor. 2 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were approached by Tarabaug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd for developing the property of the society which is situated at Mazgaon. Accordingly the Petitioners made arrangement and applied for grant of NOC to Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.2 after verifying the tenements occupied by various members/tenants/occupants issued its certified lists thereby declaring the names of various members/tenants/occupants to be eligible for rehabilitation in the new building which was to be constructed by the Petitioners. The Petitioners thereafter obtained NOC from the Respondents and also submitted its plan to Respondent No.4 BMC which issued IOD dated 23/03/2004 for carrying out project and subsequently commencement certificate dated 27/08/2004 was issued. It is the case of the Petitioners that they have constructed a building and also made available permanent alternate accommodation in the newly constructed building on ownership basis to Mrs. Annapurna Sahadev Naik being a member of the Tarabaug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that in spite of permanent alternative accommodation in the newly constructed building on ownership basis being made available to the Respondents being the legal heirs of deceased member Annapurna Sahadev Naik, the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are not cooperating and 3 did not execute agreement with the Petitioners nor issued irrevocable consent for the said project and thereby refused to vacate the old tenement in their occupation and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking direction against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to initiate action under Section 95A of the MHADA Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 6, 8 and 9 who who are the legal heirs of Annapurna Naik submits that they have no objection for shifting from old tenement to the permanent alternate accommodation provided by the Petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 who are also the legal heirs of Annapurna Naik states that they are disputing the very development of the property in question and therefore they are not under obligation to shift and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 95-A of the MHADA Act is not applicable. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that they have already initiated action under Section 95-A of the MHADA Act by issuing notice dated 24/3/2009 and that they would proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 7. We are not concerned with the inter-se dispute 4 between the Respondents and that of the Petitioners and, whatever issues they are having in the matter with the petitioner. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they have initiated action under Section 95-A of the MHADA Act and that they will proceed with the matter in accordance with law, nothing survives in the petition and the same is disposed of as infructuous. (J N Patel, J) (C L Pangarkar, J)