-: 1 :- wp-1477/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1477 OF 2010 Shankar N. Dhobi Mimiya. ..Petitioner. Versus The C.E.O. & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Vincent D’silva for the petitioner. Mr. J. G. Reddy (Aradwad) for respondent nos. 2 & 5. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 3. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 14, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Vincent D’silva, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. G. Reddy (Aradwad), learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 5 and Ms. P. S. Cardozo, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 3. 2. The property in dispute is being developed in SRA housing scheme by respondent no.3 under DC Regulation 33(10) of the Bombay Development Control Regulation of 1991. The petitioner claims that on the notified date, i.e., 1-1-1995 he was residing in the structure in question. However, he is not held eligible for alternative permanent accommodation by the Additional Collector. The order of the Additional Collector was challenged before the Secretary, SRA. The said appeal was srp -: 2 :- wp-1477/10 also dismissed by the order impugned in the petition. 3. In order to be eligible for permanent alternative accommodation in SRA scheme, the petitioner must show the existence of structure and his occupation in the same as on 1-1-1995. The petitioner has produced some evidence demonstrating that prior to the notified date his father was in possession of the structure in question. Both the lower authorities, however, concurrently recorded the finding that the petitioner could not produce any evidence of his occupation in the said structure on the notified date. The occupation of slum dweller on notified date is required to be established under Appendix-IV of Regulation 33(10) in order to avoid the possibility of persons who have left the structure coming back to claim free tenement under the scheme even though they have in the normal course left the slum and gone away into a proper non-slum areas or out of Brihan Mumbai. The evidence produced by the petitioner showing occupation of his predecessor-in-title prior to the notified date is of no help to the petitioner. The lower authorities have approached the matter from correct point of view. I do not find any substance in the petition and same is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)