1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1180 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1439 OF 2008 Shri Suresh Kantilal Salot : Appellant versus The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and ors. : Respondents. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1181 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1440 OF 2008 M/s. Omkar Scales : Appellant versus The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and ors. : Respondents. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1182 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1441 OF 2008 M/s.Viral Trading Co. : Appellant versus The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and ors. : Respondents. 2 Shri. Y E Mooman i/by Shri S S Mishra and Shri S B Sharma for the Appellant. Shri Kuldeep S Patil for the Respondent No.1 Shri Shailesh More, AGP for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 12, 2009 P.C. 1. The above appeals challenge the order dated 6th November 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, by which order the learned Judge refused to continue the exparte ad- interim relief granted by the learned Vacation Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai. 2. The Appellants, who are the original Plaintiffs, have filed L.C.Suits impugning the notices issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act by the Respondent No.1-MMRDA. The Plaintiffs have also impugned the consequent orders whereby the portion of the suit structure, which is affected by the Andheri- Ghatkopar Link Road, is sought to be demolished. The Plaintiffs in the 3 said suits, therefore, seek relief to the extent of retaining the portion which is not affected by the road as well as seek alternate accommodation in lieu of the portion which is affected by the road. 3. At the hearing of the Application, a statement came to be made on behalf of the Respondent No.1-MMRDA that the MMRDA would not demolish the part of the structure which does not fall within the road. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the material that was before it, came to a conclusion that the portion of the structure in all the suits which is sought to be demolished clearly falls within the alignment of the road and that there was no material on record to show that the said structures are protected. The trial Court, considering the fact that the Plaintiffs would continue to stay in the portion which is not to be demolished and in view of the statement made on behalf of the Respondent No.1-MMRDA, did not deem it fit to continue the ad- interim order. However, on the statement made by the learned 4 counsel for the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs intend to approach this Court by way of Appeal, the ad interim order was continued for two weeks and, thereafter the said ad-interim order was continued by this Court by order dated 19th November 2008. 5. The learned counsel for the Appellants Shri Mooman fairly stated that his clients do not desire to come in the way of the road development work, but their only grievance is that in lieu of demolition of their affected structures, they should be rehabilitated. The learned counsel further submitted that the structures of each of the above Appellants is affected to the extent of more than 50% and, therefore, the Appellants are entitled to be rehabilitated as per the policy of the Respondent No.1-MMRDA. The grievance was also made that in spite of the order of the status quo, the Respondent No.1 has carried out the demolition. 6. In so far as rehabilitation of the Appellants/Plaintiffs is concerned, the Respondent No.1-MMRDA has a policy in place and, 5 therefore, they could be rehabilitated only in terms of the said policy. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-MMRDA disputed the allegation made by the learned counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the Respondent No.1 has demolished the structures in spite of the status quo order. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that save and except the three structures involved in the above Appeals, all the adjacent structures have been demolished and the road development work is held up only on account of the three structures of the Appellants/Plaintiffs. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that in the process of demolishing the adjoining structures, may be the structures of the Appellants/Plaintiffs might have been affected. 7. As indicated above, the instant Appeals have been directed against the order dated 06/11/2008. Since admittedly, a part of the structure of the Appellants/Plaintiffs is affected by the road development work relating to Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, and in view of the fact that a Statement has been made on behalf of the 6 Respondent No.1-MMRDA that the only affected portion would be demolished, in my view, in the aforesaid fact and situation, the above Appeals have no merit and therefore the Appellants/Plaintiffs are not entitled to the continuance of the ad-interim orders passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai and continued by this Court by the order dated 19/11/2008. The Respondent No.1-MMRDA would, therefore, be entitled to implement the said road development work relating to the Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road and would be thereby entitled to demolish the structures to the extent affected by the said work. However, the Respondent No.1 MMRDA is directed to consider the case of the Appellants/Plaintiffs for allotment of alternate accommodation as per its existing policy. The concerned authority of the Respondent No.1-MMRDA therefore to decide the said issue within a period of four weeks from date by taking into consideration all the relevant factors and apply the policy as applicable. The Respondent No.1-MMRDA, prior to undertaking the demolition of the structures of the Appellants/Plaintiffs,to give three days prior notice to the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 7 8. In the light of the above, the above Appeals to stand disposed of. 9. In view of the disposal of the above Appeals, the Civil Applications do not survive and the same accordingly to stand disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]