1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.2477 of 2008 Smt.Jankibai Gopal Bhor & ors. Petitioners Vs. Thane Municipal Corporation & ors. Respondents Mr.Jaydeep S. Deo for petitioners. Mr.S.M.Oak for resp.no.3. Mr.M.V.Limaye i/b. Mr.R.S.Apte for resp.no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 10, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. They are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal No.146 of 2007. The petitioners have filed Special Civil Suit No.721 of 2006 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Thane and prayed for declaration of right, title and interest from the suit property. They claim that on Final Plot No.340 admeasuring 3955.92 sq.mtrs. they are the possessors by way lessors in respect of three chawls. . The respondent no.1 - Municipal Corporation owns the said plot and it has approved scheme for development and granted to the respondent no.3. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.3 2 it is pointed out that on Final Plot No.340 there were in all 134 encroachers and 128 of them have already entered into an agreement with the said respondent. The respondent no.3 in turn has agreed to provide accommodation in the development scheme in Final Plot No.340. The remaining six persons including the present petitioners have not done so and it is stated by the respondent no.3 that the petitioner no.1 is not residing in any structure on Final Plot No.340. The said allegation also has been made in respect of the petitioner no.2 and it is stated that the petitioner no.2 is residing in Pushpanjali Society, Thane (East). It is further pointed out that the entire scheme is finalised and the encroachers of Final Plot No.340 would be provided with accommodation in the final scheme. It is, therefore, for the petitioners to approach the respondent no.1 - Corporation, prove their title and if they are held to be 134 encroachers or additional encroachers on Final Plot No.340, undoubtedly respondent no.3 will have to also enter into an agreement with them for providing accommodation in the final development scheme. . Having regards to the earlier orders passed by 3 this Court in Writ Petition Nos.5953 of 2005 and 4461 of 2006, the lower Appellate Court has rightly held that prima facie there was no case to grant an injunction in favour of the petitioners - plaintiffs. . The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL