JUDGMENT : F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Teles, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. J.E. Melo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4/Communidade and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 6. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. Though when the petition was circulated for urgent relief, we were not inclined to grant any ad-interim reliefs. Considering the orders which were in operation, the parties sought time to work out a solution whereby the petitioners could be given time to vacate the subject premises located in the property belonging to the respondent no.4/ Communidade. 5. Mr. Teles, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that as the children of the petitioners are admitted in the surrounding schools, time may be granted to vacate the subject premises. The above petitioners were accordingly examined in the context of a mercy petition only to examine whether time could be granted to the petitioners to vacate the subject premises. The respondent no.4/Communiade after discussion pointed out that only on humanitarian grounds the respondent no.4 were agreeable to give time to the petitioners to demolish and vacate the subject premises on or before 31.03.2017. The petitioners were thereafter directed to file an undertaking to this Court to that effect. Accordingly, when the matter was taken up today, Mr. Teles, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed an undertaking duly signed by the petitioners whose signatures are identified by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 6. Mr. Melo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4/Communidade upon instructions of the attorney of the respondent no.4 has accepted the terms of such undertaking and in recognition thereof has signed thereon. The undertaking is accepted and marked 'X' for identification. 7. Mr. Teles, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners however points out that it be clarified that the said undertaking should not affect the petitioners to avail of any remedy in law if at all they are so entitled in any subsequent changed circumstances in law. It is well settled that there can be no estoppel against law. In such circumstances, no further clarifications are required. 8. It is well settled that there can be no estoppel against law. In such circumstances, no further clarifications are required. 8. In view of the above, we dispose of the above petition by accepting the said undertaking marked 'X' for identification. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Place the matter for compliance report in the month of April, 2017.