-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.823 OF 2008 Shobhana Dattatray Palav and others ... Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents. Mr. N.K. Mudnaney for the petitioners. Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, instructed by M/s. YKS Legal, for respondent No.5. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2008. P.C. This is a thoroughly misconceived petition filed by the petitioners. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed that the NOC granted to respondent No.5 be cancelled. The NOC for redevelopment of the property in question was issued in the year 1994. Thereafter the revised NOC was issued in the year 2002. It is an admitted fact that the construction of the building is over. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the construction is not over. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously objected to this. 2. It is also required to be noted that the dispute is regarding a shop -2- and open space. Mr. Sakhare, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, submitted that so far as shop is concerned, one Harishchandra A. Palav, who is uncle of the petitioners, was the tenant and the daughter of said Harishchandra had claimed her right in the said shop, being Class-I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. However, since civil dispute is going on in this behalf, we would not like to go into this aspect of the matter. So far as open space is concerned, it is pointed out during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the unauthorised shed constructed on the open space by the petitioners has been demolished by the Corporation. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.5, the petitioners are not entitled to get any alternative accommodation on the basis that they were in occupation of the said open space. 3. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.5, it has been pointed in para 23 that the dispute regarding shop is pending in First Appeal No. 759 of 2000. Regarding the shed, it has been averred that the shed has been demolished by the Corporation which action is approved by the City Civil Court and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this behalf. In paragraph 43 of the said reply, it has been stated that all eligible tenants are provided permanent accommodation and that the respondents had acted in accordance with the D.C. Regulations. 4. Considering the fact that the construction of the building is -3- complete as can be seen from the photographs at pages 124 to 126, the relief regarding cancellation of NOC cannot be granted. Even on merits and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substance in any of the prayers made by the petitioners in this writ petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.