The corporation is entitled to proceed with development while providing alternate accommodations, and the court may grant liberty to challenge the policy but not grant ad-interim relief.

Heard finally, by consent.

2. The Appellants-original Plaintiffs have challenged order dated 19 November 2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court Bombay, whereby in a Suit filed by them the declaration is sought that notices dated 28 August 2013 and 25 October 2013, are bad in law, null and void and arbitrary, whereby the Respondent-Corporation offered them alternate accommodation on ground floor of Municipal Market on plot bearing C.T.S. No. 1293, 1293/1 to 5, 1294/3 to 7 and 657/A part of village Kanjur at Kanjur Marg. However, that was subject to deposit of 6 months stallage charges to be deposited within 15 days. It is specifically provided that “you shall provide internal brick masonry walls, electric wiring etc. at your own cost if necessary, only after issuance of final Letter of allotment”.

3. The Appellants objected the same by filing reply dated 8 October 2013. However by order dated 25 October 2013, in view of their alleged policy of MCGM, directed to pay the necessary charges as per the demand made, failing which threatened to demolish the structures. The Appellants have been in possession of the premises on the land of Corporation since long. By the notice/action, the Respondents-Corporation have recognized their rights and therefore, offered to provide them alternate accommodation, though not in the same location, but in an area which is about 3 Km. away from the existing structures.

4. The matter was adjourned, for the Appellants to consider the policy, as well as, their offer so made. However, it appears that the Appellants are not willing to accept the offer/alternate accommodation so offered to these 23 commercial structures which are going to be affected in a beautification of Shivaji Talao, Bhandup (West) in 'S” Ward. The basic terms and conditions are as under:-

“1) That the PAPs shall pay Standing Deposit equivalent to 6 months stallage charges.

2) That the PAPs shall pay monthly stallage charges at the prevailing rate, which is presently Rs.12.50/- per sq. ft. per month.

3) That allotment shall be purely as a licensee of Market Dept and not on tenancy or ownership basis.

4) That the PAPs shall construct their stall/shop including internal brick masonary wall, provide shutter, electric fittings etc. entirely at their own cost.

5) That the PAPs shall abide with all the terms and conditions in force. The PAPs shall give an undertaking on Rs.200/- stamp paper towards faithful compliance of the terms & conditions, rules & regulations of the Market Deptt.

6) That the eligibility and area to be allotted has been confirmed by Asstt. Commissioner 'S' ward, Market Deptt. Accept it as correct and shall not be held responsible for any lapse therein.”

5. The submission is made first of all that the alleged policy is prepared on 28 August 2013 by modifying the earlier PAP (Project Affected Person) policies dated 25 March 2013 and 28 March 2013. Here they are not taken even 25% cost of construction from PAP. In any way, the offer so made is not acceptable to the Appellants. The validity of such policy, just cannot be gone into at this stage of the proceedings specially when the scope and power of Court to interfere with such policy is quite limited. The remedy is elsewhere.

6. The Court needs to consider, in this background, the submission so raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants that the impugned order/action so initiated by the Corporation is totally against the basic principles of law without giving fair and equal opportunity. The reliance is accordingly placed upon the Judgments of this Court in Sopan Maruti Thopte Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (1996(1) Mh. L. J. 963)and Abdul Hasan Shaikh Mansuri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai & Ors. (2007(2) Bom. C.R. 804). All these judgments are in the matters where the Corporation had issued the notice of demolition/eviction by treating the structure unauthorized as contemplated under Sections 351(1) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation