1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.3477 of 2008 Kishore Murlidhar Mani & anr. Petitioners Vs. Mr.Rajan Chandru Mani & ors. Respondents Mr.Rafiq A. Dada, Senior Counsel with Mr.G.K.Masand i/b. Mr.Madhusudan Gawde for petitioners. Mr.Amit Shett for resp.no.1. Mr.Rumi H. Mirza for resp.no.2. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for resp.nos.3 and 4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. June 3, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Dada, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Gawde for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Shett appears for the respondent no.1, Mr.Mirza appears for the respondent no.2 and Mr.Rayrikar, the learned AGP appears for the respondent nos.3 and 4 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Managing Officer, Mumbai City and Section Officer (R-6), Revenue and Forest Department in his capacity as the Settlement Commissioner under the repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and 2 Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. 3. In Writ Petition No.4461 of 2007 filed by the petitioners and which was disposed off by this Court on 6/9/2007, it has been noted that the Chief Settlement Commissioner is the Appellate Authority under the repealed Act, having regards to the provisions of Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the said Act. As the order impugned in Writ Petition No.4461 of 2007 was passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner who could be the Appellate Authority, this Court remanded the matter for being decided by the Settlement Commissioner and accordingly by the impugned order in this petition the Settlement Commissioner has rejected the petitioners’ claim of being the sole claimants of the suit flat as the LRs of the original allottee i.e. Mrs.Kamlabai Mani. 4. This Court in the earlier order dated 6/9/2007 had noted that the order impugned was already acted upon in asmuchas the names of the respondent nos.1 and 2 along with the names of the petitioners were taken on record in place of the name of the original allottee, by effecting the mutation entry. This Court, therefore, clarified that the names recorded 3 would be subject to the final decision in the application which application has now been dismissed by the impugned order. The same protection, therefore, deserves to be continued till the appeal to be presented by the petitioners is decided with the same clarifications that recording of the names of the respondent nos.1 and 2 shall be subject to the final outcome in the appeal to be filed. 5. Mr.Dada, the learned Senior Counsel also expressed his apprehension of being displaced or the possession being disturbed at the behest of the respondent nos.1 and 2 in the interregnum and, therefore, he prayed for protection. 6. Admittedly as of now and for quite some time in the past only the petitioners have been occupying the suit flat and the respondent nos.1 and 2 have not been staying in Mumbai for quite some time. In these obtaining circumstances the petition is disposed off in terms of the following directions: (a) The Principal Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra shall ensure that the appointment of the Chief Settlement Commissioner 4 (Evacuee Property) is made within a period of two weeks from today. (b) The petitioners’ appeal, if presented within a period of two weeks from today, shall be accepted by the Settlement Commissioner or the In-charge Settlement Commissioner for being placed before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on his resuming the office. (c) If the appeal is presented within two weeks from today, it is directed that the same shall be heard and decided by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 30th September 2008. A copy of the appeal shall be served by the learned Advocates of the petitioners on Mr.Mirza as well as Mr.Shett. (d) The parties shall maintain status quo as of now in respect of the suit flat and no third party interest in any manner shall be created in respect of the said property by any of the parties during the pendency of the appeal. 7. Needless to mention that it shall be the 5 responsibility of the petitioners to continue to discharge all the obligations in respect of the flat including the payment of statutory dues etc. and they shall not be entitled to claim any equity on the basis of this interlocutory order. 8. It is further clarified that the rights of the parties over the suit flat shall be subject to the final decision in the appeal despite the fact that the names of the petitioners as well as the respondent nos.1 and 2 have been recorded as the successors of the original allottee. (B.H.MARL