1 WPL-2125.11 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2125 OF 2011 Sandesh Balkrishna Sawant and ors. : Petitioners versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and anr. : Respondents. Mr. N P Wagle for the Petitioners. Mr. G W Mattos AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Bipin Joshi for Respondent No.3. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 13th October 2011 P.C. 1 Rule. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 waives service for the said Respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 Shri Joshi waives notice for the said Respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The above Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notices issued under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 to the Petitioners. The said notices have been issued to the Petitioners in view of the fact that the Petitioners are not vacating the premises occupied by them so as to facilitate the implementation of the re-development scheme of the property in question. 2 WPL-2125.11 This Petition had come up on 29th September 2011 on which day we have passed order recording the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the Petitioners would approach the Executive Engineer, G/South Ward, Parel, Mumbai on 3rd October 2011 at 4.30 pm and take inspection of the draft agreements as well as approved plan and, the Executive Engineer was directed to provide the same to the Petitioners. Today when the matter is called out, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the inspection as directed by this Court in the order dated 29th September 2011 has been offered to the Petitioners. The said statement is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners Shri Wagle. However, a grievance is made by Shri Wagle that there is a discrepancy in the area mentioned in the agreements and the area mentioned in the certified list of the tenants dated 12/2/2009 of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB) which is at page No.146 of the paper book. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners would be agreeable to enter into the agreements if they are granted the same area as mentioned in the certified list. He further submits that in respect of Item No. 34 in the said certified list i.e. Sandesh B Sawant and Nilesh B Sawant who are the occupants, it is the case of the Petitioners that they are in occupation of two separate premises whereas the certified list shows that they are in occupation of only one premises and on the said basis they are to be allotted only one tenement in the re-developed property. 3 WPL-2125.11 3 Considering the aforesaid facts, in our view, the interest of justice would be served if the following directions are issued :- (A) The Respondent No.3 to entered into the agreements with the Petitioners as per certified list and get them registered, in which agreements the area shown in the certified list dated 12/2/2009 would be mentioned as the area which each of the Petitioners would be entitled in the re-developed building. The said agreements would be entered into within a period of four weeks from date. (B) In so far as occupants Sandesh B Sawant and Nilesh B Sawant are concerned, since it is their case that they are in occupation of two separate premises and since as per the certified list they are in occupation of one premises, if they have any grievance in respect of the same, they have a remedy by way of filing an appeal before the Vice President and the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA in terms of the Government Resolution dated 16/8/2010. If such an appeal is filed by the said occupants, the Vice President and the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA to dispose of the same within a period of four weeks of the receipt of the said appeal. The said occupants to file the appeal within a period of four weeks from date. However, merely because it is their case that they are in occupation of two separate premises and on that basis they are entitled to two separate allotments that would not entitle them to continue to occupy the present premises, and they would also have to shift 4 WPL-2125.11 to the transit camp along with the other occupants of the building. (C) The learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 states that the transit camp is being provided to the Petitioners in the near by vicinity and the same would be provided within a period of two weeks from date. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners would occupy the said transit accommodation after the ensuing Diwali Festival is over i.e. on 01st November 2011. If the Petitioners do not occupy the said transit accommodation by 01st November 2011, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would then be entitled to enforce the notices under Section 95A of the Act which have already been issued to the Petitioners. However, till 01st November 2011 the said notices would stand stayed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]