1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 272/2011 NARAYANRAO DOMAJI MOHURLE & ORS ..VS.. THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.D. Randive, advocate for petitioner Shri Anand Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for R-1 Shri Kaptan, advocate for respondent 2 & 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 05, 2011. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent no.2, Nagpur Municipal Corporation to provide alternate accommodation to the petitioners as per the compromise dated 13.1.2009. A direction is also sought against the respondent no.3 to rehabilitate the petitioners at some other place by providing them alternate accommodation. An action is sought against the respondent no.4 and an enquiry is sought against the officers of the Municipal Corporation who took active part in removing the houses of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were in occupation of their houses, in an area which was later on declared as a slum area. The officers of the N.M.C. started proceedings for eviction against the petitioners in May 2008 and demolished the houses of the petitioner without giving any notice. It is averred in the petition that 2 after demolishing the houses of the petitioners, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation realised its mistake and a compromise deed was reduced in writing wherein it was agreed that the respondent no.4 would construct houses admeasuring 350 sq.ft. and give it to the petitioners on a lease of 30 years. However, since no action is taken by the respondents in pursuance of the agreement dated 13.1.2009, the petitioners have approached this court. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, it appears that this petition cannot be entertained as the petitioners can as well avail the remedy of filing the suit. By this petition the petitioners are trying to seek implementation of an agreement which is executed by the private parties on 13.1.2009. It also appears from the submissions filed by the respondent no.2 and 3 that the houses of the petitioners were not situated in the slum area and action was taken for the eviction of the petitioners after issuing notices to the petitioners under section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act 1966. In the facts and circumstances of the case. the writ petition would not be tenable the petitioners would be free to approach the civil court in case they want to seek the implementation of the compromise deed dated 13.1.2009. This court cannot issue any direction to the respondent nos.2 and 3 to rehabilitate the petitioners as several disputed questions of 3 facts are involved in this petition and the petitioners are seeking enforcement of a private agreement entered into between the parties. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP