IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.323 OF 2009 Joseph Sebastian Fernandes & Ors. ..... Appellants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Vinay J. Hegde, for the appellants. Mr.M.N.Shetty, for the respondent No.2. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2009. P.C. 1. By the above appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs challenge the order dated 13-03-2009 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, by which ad-interim reliefs have been refused to the appellants/plaintiffs. The appellants/plaintiffs have their structure in CTS No.657, 658 and 658(1) of Village Ambivali, Taluka Andheri, Bombay Suburban District. Out of the said CTS No.658, an area admeasuring 313.4 sq.mtrs along with the construction and out of CTS No.658(1), an area admeasuring 8.5 sq.mtrs., has been acquired for the purpose of road widening vide Notification dated 05-12-2008. The concerned occupants were asked to vacate the respective tenements within 30 days and hand over possession to the defendant no.1, 2 so that the defendant No.2 M.M.R.D.A., can construct the proposed road. Thereafter, further notices have been issued on 26-11-2008 and 30-01- 2009 calling upon the occupants to vacate the said structures. 2. As per the policy of rehabilitation, the appellants/plaintiffs have been issued allotment letter dated 26-02-2009, which allotment is in respect of the alternate accommodation, which is being made available by the defendant No.2/respondent No.2 at Oshiwara, Mumbai, against the structures which are coming within the road widening. 3. Though, initially the appellants/plaintiffs have shown their disinclination to accept alternate accommodation offered by the respondent No.2 at Oshiwara, the learned counsel for the appellants, makes a statement that the appellants/plaintiffs are ready and willing to accept the said alternate accommodation offered, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the suit and the proceedings which they proposed to file in respect of the discrimination as regards the compensation payable under the M.M.R.D.A. Act, viz-a-viz the Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants/plaintiffs would vacate the portion of the structures required for the purposes of road widening by 31-03-2009. The learned counsel for the appellants states that the 3 appellants/plaintiffs are also desirous of availing benefits of Kurar Pattern Policy, which is a policy evolved by the B.M.C. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 states that if such an application is made by the present appellants/plaintiffs, the respondent No.2 would extend its cooperation in whatever manner possible and would not come in the way of the plaintiffs, if otherwise they are entitled to the benefits of the said policy in law. The learned counsel for the appellants further states that a composite representation would be made by the plaintiffs for allotment of alternate accommodation at some other place than the one mentioned in the allotment letter and also that Anthony Joseph Fernandes, whose name is mentioned at serial No.1 in the provisional allotment letter dated 26-02- 2009 is in fact not in occupation of any structure which is affected by the said road widening. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs seeks a direction that if such a representation is received, the same may be directed to be disposed of by the respondent No.2 within a particular time frame. 4. It is therefore, directed that the defendant No.2 M.M.R.D.A., on receipt of the representation from the appellants as regards the allotment at some other place as also as regards the exclusion of the name of Anthony Joseph Fernandes, would dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from its receipt. 4 5. Both the learned counsel are aggreable that in the light of the present order, no further orders are necessary to be passed in the above appeal. The above Appeal accordingly stands disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. )