: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.158 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.186 OF 2009 Sanjeeva Konga Shetty .. Appellant V/s. M.M.R.D.A. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. M.V. Holamagi for the Appellant-Applicant. Mrs. Nilima Sanglikar for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP, for Respondent No.2. Mr. Omkar Chandurkar i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla for Respondent No.3. Smt. K.K. Soraan for Respondent No.4. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 states that respondent No.3 has no role to play in the redevelopment of this area and, in fact, it is the Mumbai Metro – I which is involved in the Road Widening Project. : 2 : 2. The grievance of the appellant-applicant is that the structure has been demolished as it falls within the road widening area. It appears that the appellant-applicant has been found to be eligible in view of the order passed by the Tahasildar i.e. the Chief Rehabilitation and Resettlement Officer. The officer has found that the appellant-applicant is eligible for commercial premises. He has, thus, been allotted a non-residential premises No.35. The appellant-applicant accepts that a key to these premises has been handed over to him. 3. In these circumstances, no further orders are required in the Appeal from Order. 4. The Appeal from Order is disposed of. 5. In view of the above, Civil Application No.186 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......