ssp 1 LPA 74 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.74 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1519 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.94 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.74 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1519 OF 2011 Ramshiromani Lalchand Tiwari .....Appellant versus The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Div., and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.75 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1551 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.75 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1551 OF 2011 Anjana Ganpat Shinde .....Appellant versus The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Div., and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.76 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1528 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2011 IN ssp 2 LPA 74 of 2011 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.76 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1528 OF 2011 Basantu Sitaram Rajbhar .....Appellant versus The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Div., and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.77 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1548 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.97 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.77 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1548 OF 2011 Phulchand Jaitul Nishad .....Appellant versus The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Div., and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.78 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1527 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.78 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1527 OF 2011 Maniram Ramphal Yadav .....Appellant versus The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Div., and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.79 of 2011 IN ssp 3 LPA 74 of 2011 WRIT PETITION NO.1512 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.79 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1512 OF 2011 Rameshkumar Nandnlal Sahu .....Appellant versus The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Div., and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.80 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1525 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.80 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1525 OF 2011 Surendrakumar Buhiram Patel .....Appellant versus The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Div., and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.81 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1514 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.81 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1514 OF 2011 Nirmala Lalji Yadav .....Appellant versus The Administrator and Divisional ssp 4 LPA 74 of 2011 Commissioner, Konkan Div., and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Y.E.Oomen i/by Ms.Manisha B. Gawde, for the appellants. Mr.M.M.Malvankar, for the respondent – MCGM. Mr.J.G.Reddy, for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.Chirag Balsara a/w Mr.Aftab Diamondwala, Ms.Sheetal Aangane, Mrs.Asha Nair and Mr.Mohanish Chaudhan i/by M/s.Divya Shah Associates, for respondent No.6. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 06th APRIL, 2011 P.C. : 1. Since common point is involved in all the above appeals, they are taken together for final disposal and decided by this common order. The appellants have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge passed in various writ petitions by which the learned Single Judge recorded statement of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 that respondent No.6 Developer will provide to the appellants (original petitioners) transit accommodation or rent in lieu thereof for the period of six months. Further statement made by the learned Senior Counsel is that in case the appellants succeed in their appeals before SRA, they will be provided permanent alternate accommodation on site as per the scheme. The learned Single Judge accepted the aforesaid statements made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6. The learned Single Judge directed ssp 5 LPA 74 of 2011 respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner’s appeal challenging the eligibility as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within the period of eight weeks from today. 2. Since there is a consensus prevailing between both the sides, it is not necessary to examine the grievance raised by the appellants in detail. It is agreed between the parties that appellants shall vacate their concerned existing premises within a period of one month from today and will shift in the transit accommodation within a period of one month. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 states that they have already shown various sites in their affidavit before the learned Single Judge, out of which appellants may select appropriate site within one week and may shift in the transit accommodation thereafter within three weeks. Accordingly, four weeks time is granted to shift in the transit accommodation. The oral undertaking on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted. The appellants to act on that basis. 3. It is agreed between the parties that in case decision of the SRA regarding their eligibility criterion is against the appellants, it will be open to the appellants to challenge the said decision before appropriate authority i.e. High Power Committee. Till the claim of the appellants is decided by the SRA, respondent No.6 may not allot newly constructed area to anyone else and reserve some area for the present appellants. In ssp 6 LPA 74 of 2011 case the decision about eligibility criterion is against the appellants, the said order shall not be implemented for a period of four weeks so that the appellants can approach High Power Committee challenging the said decision if they so desire. It will be open to the appellants to apply before the High Power Committee for interim protection. If any such appeal is preferred, it is for the High Power Committee to decide the same in accordance with law and we express no opinion on this point. In case any interim protection is granted during the pendency of the appeal by the High Power Committee and ultimately High Power Committee rejects the claim of the appellants, it will be open to the appellants to request for continuation of interim protection for a period of four weeks in order to enable them to take further proceedings in this behalf. However, it is left to the High Power Committee to consider this aspect as deemed fit and in accordance with law. 4. It is agreed on behalf of respondent No.6 that in case if any decision is taken in favour of the appellants regarding their eligibility, respondent No.6 will abide by the undertaking given before the learned Single Judge regarding providing alternate accommodation. Parties to act accordingly. 5. The above Letters Patent Appeals are accordingly disposed of in view of the consensus prevailing between the parties. ssp 7 LPA 74 of 2011 6. In view of the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeals, the above Civil Applications does not survive and are disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )