((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2476 OF 2007 Siddharth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another Petitioners versus The Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd. & others Respondents Mr.S.D.Rupwate with Gajanan P. Lasure and Aniket B. Deskar for petitioners. Mr.J.G.Reddy for respondent no.2. Mrs.P.A.Purandhare for respondent no.6. Mr.M.D.Naik, AGP for respondent no.7. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 21st October 2008 PC : 1. The petitioners case is that they are running a school in an area in respect of which now there is a S.R.A. Scheme. The contention of the petitioners is that the cut off date has to be considered as 1st January 2000. 2. On behalf of respondent no.1 it is pointed out that the plot belongs to MHADA and a scheme has been sanctioned under D.C.Regulation ((-2-)) No.33(10) and the cut off date is 1st January 1995. He also further points out that in terms of the scheme, the plot has been reserved for school. This plot will be given free of charge by respondent no.1 to respondent no.6. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1, in paragraph no.9, it is pointed out that it will be open to the petitioners to apply to respondent no.6. 4. Considering the controversy, the learned counsel does not press the petition as they propose to apply to respondent no.6 for getting the land allotted for the purpose of starting the school over the said plot. 5. He, however, prays that till such time as the plot is handed over by respondent no.1 to respondent no.6, no steps be taken to demolish the existing structure of the school. In our opinion, that is a fair submission as we do not want the students to be affected. 6. In these circumstances, it is directed that respondent no.1, till such time hands over the plot to respondent no.6, respondent no.6, not ((-3-)) to take steps to demolish the existing school structure. We make it clear that the petitioners will not be entitled to make any further addition to the structure as it exists. It will be open to the petitioners to apply to respondent no.6 after the plot is handed over by respondent no.1. If an application is made by the petitioners to respondent no.6, that application should be considered and disposed off within six months of the receipt of the application with a copy endorsed to respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 for a period of six months from such an application, if made by the petitioners, not to take any steps against said structure. 7. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed off. (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)