1 WPL-884/11 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 884 OF 2011 Gulabchand Virpar Shah : Petitioner versus Slum Rehabilittion Authority and ors. : Respondents. Ms.Madhavi Tavanandi for the Petitioner. Mr. Prashant Darandare i/by Mr. V D Patil for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Ms. K R Panjabi for Respondent No.3. Mr. S G Surana for Respondent No.4. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 30th September 2011 P.C. 1 The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 22nd March 2011 passed by the Respondent No.1 calling upon the Petitioner to vacate the structure occupied by him which is to be demolished as the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme has been completed by the Respondent No.4 and the land beneath the structure being under reservation for the public purpose i.e. Burial Ground has to be handed over to the Municipal Corporation. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the Petitioner has been allotted permanent alternate accommodation as per his entitlement i.e. commercial premises, the same is at the back side whereas the Petitioner’s present structure is abutting the road, and since the Petitioner intends to carry out kirana business (Provision Stores), the said permanent alternate accommodation is 2 WPL-884/11 not suitable. The second grievance is that the area allotted to the Petitioner is less than his entitlement. 2 In so far as first grievance of the Petitioner is concerned, it is required to be noted that in respect of the scheme in question, occupation certificate came to be issued in the year 2005 in respect of the building wherein the Petitioner has been allotted permanent alternate accommodation. It is further required to be noted that Annexure-II was issued in the year 1996 and thereafter renewed in the year 2005. The Petitioner’s grievance as regards his entitlement ultimately came to be adjudicated upon by virtue of the order dated 17th February 2011 passed in Writ Petition No.2295 of 2010 which was filed by the Petitioner. In the interregnum all the premises in the building in question were already allotted and the Respondent No.4 had to apply for modification of the plan to convert three residential premises into commercial in view of the entitlement of certain occupants including the Petitioner. It is in the said circumstances that out of the remaining available premises, that the Petitioner was allotted the premises in question. It is further required to be noted that the said premises are on the ground floor and that that there is a 15 ft. T.P. Road leading to the premises in question. Hence in so far as allotment of the premises in the building in question is concerned, we are afraid no relief can be granted to the Petitioner in respect of the same. 3 WPL-884/11 3 In so far as the dispute in area of the premises is concerned, though it has been recorded in the order dated 17th February 2011 passed in Writ Petition No.2295 of 2010 that the Petitioner was in occupation of two structures admeasuring 180.30 sq. ft, the adjudication in the said Petition was not as regards entitlement of the Petitioner to a particular area but as regards his entitlement to either a commercial or a residential premises. It is pertinent to note that in Annexure-II, the area in occupation of the Petitioner was held to be 172 sq.ft. [this was on account of the consent given by the Respondent No.4 herein]. In view thereof it is not possible to accept the contention of the Petitioner that he is entitled to an area of 180.30 sq.ft. It is required to be noted that the allotted premises is admeasuring 172 sq.ft., meant for commercial user. In that view of the matter no case for interdiction is made out. The above Petition is therefore dismissed. 4 At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks stay of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to stay this order for period of six weeks from date meaning thereby the Petitioner should not be evicted for a period of six weeks from date. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]