JUDGMENT Milind N. Jadhav, J. - The present Writ Petitions assail separate orders both dated 20.04.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 - Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (for short 'AGRC'). By virtue of the said orders, the common order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the Tahsildar - 2 (Western Suburban) Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short 'SRA') under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Regulation) Act, 1971 (for short 'the said Act') is upheld and further consequential directions are given for execution of Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (for short 'PAAA'). The orders are identical. Facts are also identical. The order dated 30.12.2022 is at Exhibit 'E' - page No.37 of Writ Petition No.14111 of 2023. By this order, Writ Petitioners are directed to vacate their structure immediately and hand over the same to Respondent No.3 -Developer with further consequential direction that structures of dissenting members should be demolished by the Competent Authority if they do not cooperate and vacate their structures. After passing of the above orders, both Petitioners agreed to vacate their structures. Further orders regarding vacating the structures have been passed in the present Petitions itself. However, the dispute is now restricted only to prayer clause 'c' in both Petitions. Prayer clause 'c' pertains to dispute raised regarding permanent alternate accommodation offered to both Petitioners in lieu of their earlier allotment due to revision in the sanctioned plan, which was not informed to Petitioners. 2. Briefly stated, Respondent No.2 - SRA called upon the Petitioners to vacate their structure by issuing statutory notices under the said Act. Since Petitioners did not vacate the structures, Respondent No.3 - Developer sought demolition of the structures through Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 issued notice for hearing to Petitioners. Hearing and meeting was held in the presence of Respondent No.2 on 14.06.2022 between parties. It was demanded by Petitioners that allotment of permanent alternate shop premises be given to Petitioners as per approved plan dated 06.09.2021 as per their allotment which was confirmed in the rehab building in the presence of Respondent No.2. The approved plan dated 06.09.2021 was at that time shown to Petitioners and Respondent No.3 -Developer confirmed the rehab tenement to be allotted to both Petitioners being Shop Nos.33 and 37 on the front side in the rehab building. The approved plan dated 06.09.2021 was at that time shown to Petitioners and Respondent No.3 -Developer confirmed the rehab tenement to be allotted to both Petitioners being Shop Nos.33 and 37 on the front side in the rehab building. On the basis of such assurance and confirmation, Respondent No.2 passed order dated 30.12.2022 directing Petitioners to vacate and hand over the existing premises to the Developer within 15 days. Petitioners called upon Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for compliance of allotment as per the approved plan dated 06.09.2021 of the alternate rehab tenement to Petitioners and also sought transit rent from Developer. 3. Above facts in both the Writ Petitions are identical and not disputed. Writ Petitioners namely Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad and Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma are admittedly occupants / members of commercial slum structures (shops). This is a development under Regulation 33(10) of the DPCR 2334 of a plot of land situated at Charkop, Mumbai - 67. There are 216 slum dwellers. Writ Petitioners are the only two slum dwellers who had not vacated their slum structures despite order of eviction dated 30.12.2022 passed by Respondent No.2 - Tahsildar, SRA and the impugned orders dated 20.04.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 - AGRC. 4. Grievance of both Petitioners is with respect to location of permanent alternate accommodation of shop premises in the Rehab Building which is being allotted to them considering that both Writ Petitioners are tenants of commercial structures. One of the grievance exhibited by both Writ Petitioners is that in the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by Tahsildar and the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by AGRC affirming their eviction, there is no clarity on the permanent alternate accommodation which shall be allotted to them. It is common grievance on behalf of both Writ Petitioners that initially their structures were not coming in the way of the rehab buildings which were being constructed by the Developer, but now that the rehab buildings are completed, they are required to be allotted their permanent alternate accommodation if they have to vacate. It is grievance of Petitioners that in the meeting held between the parties in the presence of Respondent No.2 - Tahsildar, Petitioners were shown the approved plan dated 06.09.2021 of the rehab building and were informed that the rehab tenements / shops on the front side in the building will be given to the Petitioners against Shop Nos.33 and 37 respectively. This position of allotment of these shops under the sanctioned plan dated 06.09.2021 is not disputed by Developer. It is averred in both Writ Petitions that such discussion was held in the meeting held on 14.06.2022 in the presence of Respondent No.2 -Tahsildar and the approved plan dated 06.09.2021 was shown to Petitioners. This fact incidentally is also certified by the Respondent No.2 - Slum Rehabilitation Authority in paragraph No.10 of its Affidavit-in-reply dated 04.08.2023. 5. On 30.12.2022, Tahsildar passed a common order of eviction directing Petitioners to vacate and handover their existing premises to the Developer. The said order dated 30.12.2022 is upheld by the AGRC and a further direction is given to the Developer -Respondent No.3 to execute PAAA (commercial) within 7 days. It is pertinent to note that in the order dated 20.04.2023, in paragraph No.20 it is clearly recorded that provision for Applicants' / Petitioners' rehab tenement on the front side in the sale wing has been made and the same has been shown to the Tahsildar also. It was informed to Writ Petitioners subsequently that sometime in the month of November 2022, Respondent No.3 - Developer revised the earlier sanctioned plan dated 06.09.2021 and the allotment which was originally made to Petitioners was changed. Writ Petitioners have averred that sometime in the month of November 2022, Respondent No.3 - Developer revised the earlier sanctioned plan and put up the same for approval before the Planning Authority. 6. Writ Petitioners are aggrieved that before the Respondent No.1 - AGRC, this fact that the original sanctioned plan dated 06.09.2021 was revised was never placed on record and was clearly suppressed by Respondent No.3 - Developer. Resultantly AGRC upheld the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the Tahsildar of eviction against the Writ Petitioners. Infact even the common order of eviction was passed by Tahsildar after the Developer sought to revise the sanctioned plan dated 06.09.2021. All along it was the Writ Petitioners assumption that permanent alternate accommodation would be allotted to Petitioners according to the sanctioned plan dated 06.09.2021 at Shop Nos.33 and 37 which was confirmed. Petitioner namely Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad was recorded as an 'eligible' occupant and in the approved plan dated 06.09.2021 was allotted Shop No.33 whereas Petitioner namely Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma was recorded as an 'eligible' occupant and in the approved plan dated 06.09.2021 was allotted Shop No.37. Petitioner namely Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad was recorded as an 'eligible' occupant and in the approved plan dated 06.09.2021 was allotted Shop No.33 whereas Petitioner namely Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma was recorded as an 'eligible' occupant and in the approved plan dated 06.09.2021 was allotted Shop No.37. Both these shops can be clearly seen on the plan dated 06.09.2021. This position is not denied by any of the parties. 7. Grievance of both Writ Petitioners is that today the permanent alternate accommodation has now been changed by Respondent No.3 - Developer and is not what was promised to them as per the earlier approved plan dated 06.09.2021. Both Writ Petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that they agreed to vacate their shops on the assurance given to them that permanent alternate accommodation will be given to them as per the approved plan dated 06.09.2021, whereas now pursuant to passing of the twin orders dated 30.12.2022 and 20.04.2023, it is now learnt by them that as per the revised plan dated 11.11.2022, Writ Petitioners are given permanent alternate accommodation at Shop Nos.10 and 3 respectively on the rear side of the road which would be virtually impossible for the Writ Petitioners to conduct their business. In effect, Petitioners are aggrieved with the change of location of their permanent alternate accommodation allotment as per the revised plan. 8. Respondent No.3 - Developer has now allotted Shop No.10 instead of Shop No.33 to the Petitioner - Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad and Shop No.3 in place of Shop No.37 to the Petitioner - Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma. Location of both these shops is at a different place than that what was promised earlier under the plan dated 06.09.2021 is what is alleged. 9. Dr. Chandrachud, learned Advocate for both Writ Petitioners would submit that there is an apparent breach of promise and estoppel on the part of Respondent No.3 - Developer. He would submit that admittedly before the Tahsildar, allotment of permanent alternate accommodation to both Writ Petitioners was under the approved plan dated 06.09.2021, but now allotment under the revised plan dated 11.11.2022 is at a completely different place. He would submit that frontage of Petitioners' shops have been reduced from 7 feet to 3 feet and this itself would be an impossibility for the Writ Petitioners to conduct their business. 9.1. He would submit that frontage of Petitioners' shops have been reduced from 7 feet to 3 feet and this itself would be an impossibility for the Writ Petitioners to conduct their business. 9.1. He would submit that as compared to the rehab component, Respondent No.3 - Developer has in the sale component provided for a frontage of 25 feet for each of the shops which are constructed and this discrimination is writ large on the face of record as the Developer has changed the location which is prejudicial to the Petitioners. 9.2. Next he has drawn my attention to the approved plan dated 06.09.2021 at Exhibit 'D' and also the revised approved plan dated 11.11.2022 at Exhibit 'J'. In so far as Writ Petitioner - Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad is concerned, as per the original plan he was allotted Shop No.33 whereas under the revised plan his allotment has been changed to Shop No.10. However when both plans are juxtaposed, it is seen that location of Shop No.33 and Shop No.10 incidentally is at the same place. Hence, in so far as grievance of Petitioner - Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad is concerned, there is no substance, since there is no prejudice or loss whatsoever caused to him in any respect as per the fresh allotment made to him for Shop No.10 under the revised sanctioned plan dated 11.11.2022. 9.3. It is further seen that frontage of the shop of Petitioner -Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad is also approximately of the same width as was the frontage earlier provided under the plan dated 06.09.2021. Hence in view of the above observations and findings, challenge of Petitioner - Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad to the twin orders of the Tahsildar dated 30.12.2022 and the AGRC dated 20.04.2023 is not maintainable. His grievance regarding prayer clause 'c' is not sustainable. There is no prejudice caused to this Writ Petitioner. Writ Petition (L.) No.14111 of 2023 filed by Petitioner - Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad therefore fails. Petitioner is entitled to permanent alternate accommodation in Shop No.10. PAAA be executed accordingly within 4 weeks from today. WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14107 OF 2023:- 10. His grievance regarding prayer clause 'c' is not sustainable. There is no prejudice caused to this Writ Petitioner. Writ Petition (L.) No.14111 of 2023 filed by Petitioner - Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad therefore fails. Petitioner is entitled to permanent alternate accommodation in Shop No.10. PAAA be executed accordingly within 4 weeks from today. WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14107 OF 2023:- 10. In so far as the challenge maintained in Writ Petition (L.) No.14107 of 2023 filed by Petitioner -Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma is concerned, it is seen that originally under the earlier approved plan dated 06.09.2021 he was allotted Shop No.37 which was a regular rectangular shop having frontage on the 18.30 feet wide DP road facing towards the East. The width of the entrance was 5.38 feet. However pursuant to revision of the plan on the front portion facing the East, Respondent No.3 - Developer has now constructed an entire shop line at the earlier location and has changed the allotment of the original shop from Shop No.37 to Shop No.12 to this Petitioner. Ideally, Shop No.12 which is situated at the same place as that of the earlier Shop No.37 ought to have been allotted to the Petitioner -Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma in lieu of Shop No.37, however it is seen that Respondent No.3 - Developer has allotted Shop No.3 to the Writ Petitioner which is far away on the (rear) inside, facing the North and most importantly this shop has a width of 3.33 feet only due to the pillar constructed at its entrance. 11. Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.3 - Developer in his usual fairness has admitted that during the hearing held in June 2022 before the Tahsildar, reliance was indeed placed on the then approved sanctioned plan dated 06.09.2021 by Respondent No.3 - Developer, but he would however submit that in view of subsequent development and revision of plan, Respondent No.3 - Developer had no option but to revise the sanctioned plan and under the revised sanctioned plan, the only shop which was available for allotment to the Writ Petitioner was Shop No.3. 11.1. He would draw my attention to the Affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.3 - Developer dated 22.06.2023 to contend that Respondent No.3 - Developer has stated therein that he had not given any assurance whatsoever to the Writ Petitioner. 11.1. He would draw my attention to the Affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.3 - Developer dated 22.06.2023 to contend that Respondent No.3 - Developer has stated therein that he had not given any assurance whatsoever to the Writ Petitioner. All that the Affidavitin- reply of Respondent No.3 - Developer would refer to is the issue of eviction of Writ Petitioners and dispute relating to payment of transit rent and nothing more. However in paragraph No.3, Respondent No.3 - Developer has categorically admitted the fact that in the hearing which took place on 13.01.2023 before the AGRC it was contended by him that the earlier approved sanctioned plan was revised and modified by him on 11.11.2022 and as per the revised sanctioned plan dated 11.11.2022, proposed premises to be allotted to this Writ Petitioner was on the rear side of the road. 12. In this regard it is pertinent to note the contents of the Affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.2 - SRA with respect to the meeting held between the parties before passing of the impugned order dated 30.12.2022. Paragraph No.10 of the said Affidavit-in-reply reads thus:- '10. I say and submit that in present case initially approved plan dated 06.09.2021, shows that the commercial premises to be allotted to the Petitioners were proposed in building facing to the proposed D.P. road and having 18.30 mts width. Later on due to planning constraints the developer has proposed to make provision in same building facing to 9.15 mtrs. wide proposed D.P. road.' 13. Thus from the above, it is clear that what was represented by Respondent No.3 - Developer to the Writ Petitioner was allotment of Shop No.37 facing East and the shop now allotted to the Writ Petitioner is a shop with a very narrow entrance facing the North on the rear side of the road. The frontage of this shop is a mere 3.33 feet in width. Hence there is a clear misrepresentation on the part of Respondent No.3 - Developer in so far as allotment of permanent alternate accommodation to the present Writ Petitioner. As noted hereinabove, if both the plans i.e. old sanctioned plan dated 06.09.2021 and the new sanctioned plan dated 11.11.2022 are juxtaposed, it is clear that the location and position of the original Shop No.37 is not changed at all by the Respondent No.3 - Developer. As noted hereinabove, if both the plans i.e. old sanctioned plan dated 06.09.2021 and the new sanctioned plan dated 11.11.2022 are juxtaposed, it is clear that the location and position of the original Shop No.37 is not changed at all by the Respondent No.3 - Developer. That location is now shown as Shop No.12 since a shop line is constructed by the Developer thereon. If that be the case then there is no reason whatsoever for the Respondent No.3 - Developer to have changed the alignment of original Shop No.37 and allotted Shop No.3 on the rear side of the development to the Writ Petitioner. Under the new revised plan, in place of Shop No.37, allotment at the same location of Shop No.12 ought to have been done by the Developer. The Developer has done so for the earlier Writ Petitioner and has discriminated against the present Writ Petitioner. 14. The current existing Shop No.12 in the revised sanctioned plan dated 11.11.2022 is exactly at the same location as that of the original Shop No.37 under the earlier plan dated 06.09.2021 and if at all allotment had to be changed in place of the Writ Petitioner's shop, this shop number i.e. Shop No.12 ought to have been allotted to the Writ Petitioner. Having not done so, the Writ Petitioner is rightly aggrieved. Shop No.3 which is allotted to this Petitioner is an irregularly shaped shop, at the rear end, with a width of 3.33 feet and most importantly, prejudicial to the Petitioner's right. 15. In view of the above observations and findings, I come to the definite conclusion that Respondent No.3 - Developer has clearly acted malafidely in allotment of permanent alternate accommodation (commercial shop) No.3 to this Writ Petitioner namely Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is seen that even after revision of the sanctioned plan, the location and situation of the earlier shop has not been changed, but the said shop has now been renumbered as Shop No.12. Mr. Pandey has argued that this shop is not in the Rehab Building, but in the sale building. If that be so, the Petitioner cannot be forced to accept Shop No.3 and asked to take that allotment due to the above stated reasons. Mr. Pandey has argued that this shop is not in the Rehab Building, but in the sale building. If that be so, the Petitioner cannot be forced to accept Shop No.3 and asked to take that allotment due to the above stated reasons. Respondent No.3 - Developer cannot unjustly enrich himself at the cost of the Petitioner's right by keeping the Petitioner in the dark. Suppression on the part of the Developer is clearly proven in the present case. 16. In that view of the matter and also for the reasons which are recorded hereinabove, allotment of Shop No.3 to the Writ Petitioner -Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma is clearly contrary to law and an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of Respondent No.3 -Developer. Respondent No.3 - Developer cannot be allowed to enrich himself at the cost of suffering of the original occupants whose land is taken for development and more specifically when Respondent No.3 -Developer is clearly in breach of his own promise of allotment. 17. In view of the above, Respondent No.3 - Developer is directed to allot Shop No.12 under the revised sanctioned plan dated 11.11.2022 to the Writ Petitioner Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma as permanent alternate accommodation. This is so because, this shop is at the same location as the earlier Shop No.37 which was promised and allotted to this Petitioner under the earlier plan dated 06.09.2021. Respondent No.3 - Developer cannot change the nomenclature of the shop allotted and situated at the same place in the revised sanctioned plan and not allot the same to the Writ Petitioner to his detriment without informing the Statutory Authorities. This fact has been conveniently suppressed by the Developer from the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 before the orders of eviction were passed. Equally, Respondent No.3 - Developer cannot allot Shop No.12 to any other third party or sell the same as sale component and allot Shop No.3 to the Writ Petitioner to his detriment. Right of the original occupant to get rehabilitated is paramount than that of sale component. 18. In view of the above findings, it is directed that Respondent No.3 - Developer shall allot Shop No.12 to the Writ Petitioner - Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma in lieu of Shop No.3. Resultantly, allotment of Shop No.3 to the Writ Petitioner stands cancelled. 19. 18. In view of the above findings, it is directed that Respondent No.3 - Developer shall allot Shop No.12 to the Writ Petitioner - Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma in lieu of Shop No.3. Resultantly, allotment of Shop No.3 to the Writ Petitioner stands cancelled. 19. The PAAA shall be executed between the parties within a period of 4 weeks from today in respect of Shop No.12 as permanent alternate accommodation to this Writ Petitioner. 20. With the above directions, Writ Petition (L.) No.14107 of 2023 stands partly allowed in terms of prayer clause 'c' without interfering with the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 pertaining to eviction. 21. With the above directions, both Writ Petition (L.) No.14111 of 2023 and Writ Petition (L.) No.14107 of 2023 stand disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 22. After the above judgment is pronounced in Court, Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 - Developer would submit that in so far as the judgment pertaining to Writ Petition (L.) No.14107 of 2023 is concerned, the same may be stayed for a further period of six (6) weeks in view of the impending vacation. Considering the fact that the parties have been given time of four (4) weeks to execute PAAA and the facts and circumstances in the aforesaid judgment, I am not inclined to accede to the request made by Mr. Pandey. Hence, request for stay of this judgment in so far as Writ Petition (L.) No.14107 of 2023 is concerned, is rejected.