1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2543 OF 2009 Mahadeo Sitaram Rane ...Petitioner Versus M/s.Santosh Enterprises & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2544 OF 2009 Smt.Yamunabai Mahipat Rane ...Petitioner Versus M/s.Santosh Enterprises & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.K.K.Jadhav for Petitioner. Mr.Birendra Saraf i/b Mr.Kunal Cheema for Respondent No.1. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Govt.Pleader with Mr.R.A.Lokhande, A.G.P. for State. Mr.B.V.Phadnis i/b Utangale & Co. for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 19, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The first grievance of the Petitioners is that the alternative accommodation offered to the Petitioners should be at the same 2 place where the existing structure is located and in occupation of the Petitioners. This submission does not commend to us. Inasmuch as, on account of Redevelopment Scheme, the structure occupied by the Petitioners is required to be vacated and removed. In lieu thereof, the Petitioners would be offered alternative premises in the redeveloped building. More over, the entitlement of the Petitioners to get alternative premises is as per the Scheme sanctioned under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Rules. In such a situation, the Petitioners would necessarily have to be accommodated in the rehabilitation component. As per the sanctioned Scheme, the Rehabilitation component has been constructed on the rear portion of the plot which has been redeveloped, whereas, the sale component has been constructed on the front portion of the said plot which is facing the main road. 3. By this Petition, the Petitioners are not challenging the Scheme as originally sanctioned but has confined their challenge to the limited aspect that they ought to be given alternative accommodation at the same location. That contention cannot be countenanced in view of the nature of Scheme and the arrangement 3 which has been sanctioned by the Authorities. All concerned are bound by the sanctioned Scheme. 4. The next argument canvassed before us is that the Petitioners were in occupation of commercial premises and if alternative accommodation is to be provided to the Petitioners, it should necessarily be facing the road or at least 3 meters pathway as is required by guidelines 5.4 in Appendix-4. Even this contention is devoid of merits. Inasmuch as, the Respondents by filing affidavit have placed on record that the pathway facing the premises offered to the Petitioners is in excess of 3 meters. That position is stated in Paragraph 23 of affidavit dated 28th January 2005 filed in Writ Petition No.2862 of 2004 which was also filed by the Petitioners. The fact so stated was never denied nor has been contested even now. To reassure ourselves, we called upon the Respondent No.4 to produce the sanctioned plan. The sanctioned plan as produced before us also confirms the position stated in Paragraph 23 of the said affidavit. It shows that the road facing the premises allotted to the Petitioners, is in the nature of pathway of around 4 meters wide. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioners contends that 4 at the end of the said road, the same has been closed by putting up electricity station. That does not mean that there is no existing pathway as is contended. The sanctioned plan confirms the stand taken by the Respondent No.1. Further, it is noticed from the order passed by the Authority that to reassure about the correctness of the grievance made by the Petitioners, representative was deputed to ascertain the same and on the basis of whose report, the Authority found that there is no substance in the grievance made by the Petitioners. 5. Accordingly, the argument of the Petitioners that there is no pathway of 3 meters and above in front of the premises allotted to the Petitioners, for which reason, it cannot be used as commercial premises, does not commend to us. Notably, the premises which have been allotted in the reconstructed building is around 225 sq.ft. which are residential-cum-commercial premises and another is exclusively residential premises admeasuring 225 sq.ft. In other words, there is no substance in the objection raised by the Petitioners. 5 6. The Petitioners are unable to produce any document or written Agreement between the private parties to substantiate their claim that they ought to be provided alternate accommodation only at the same location, that too, in the building constructed which is of sale component. In absence of such Agreement, the Respondents cannot be blamed for having provided alternative accommodation to the Petitioners in the reconstructed building of rehabilitation component, which is identified to accommodate the original occupants in lieu of the structures standing on the suit plot. 7. In our opinion, it is not possible to examine the disputed questions of facts which have been raised by the Petitioners in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Suffice it to observe that this Petition ought to fail. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. A.P.DESHPANDE, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.