1 WPL-976.11 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.976 OF 2011 Dr.Valerian D'Souza : Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. : Respondents. Ms. Nisha Valani for the Petitioner. Ms. I K Calcuttawala AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Singh for Respondent No.4. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 13th October 2011 P.C. 1 Rule. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 waives service on behalf of the said respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 waives service on behalf of the said Respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 By the above Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks directions that the Respondent No.2 herein i.e. the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) be directed to execute the order dated 1/12/2009 meaning thereby putting the Petitioner in possession by removing Respondent No.4 from Flat No.5G, B-Wing, situated at Sadhbhavana Co- operative Society, Sadhbhavana Complex, Kajuwadi Chakla, Andheri (E), Mumbai. The said flat No.5G in B-Wing was allotted to the Petitioner as a 2 WPL-976.11 permanent alternate accommodation. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.4 has forcibly occupied the said flat though he was allotted Flat No.3. The Respondent No.4 herein had filed a suit being BCC Suit No. 1130 of 2011 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai in which the Respondent No.4 has filed Notice of Motion seeking ad-interim relief for protecting his possession as regards the said flat No.5G. Though initially ad-interim relief came to be granted to the Respondent No.4, the same has been vacated by the City Civil Court, Mumbai by its order dated 22/7/2011. It appears that thereafter the Respondent No.4 had filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 3931 of 2011 in respect of the same subject matter. The said writ petition was dismissed for default. It is required to be noted that the eligibility of the Respondent No.4 for allotment of permanent alternate accommodation has been considered by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and on the basis of the material produced by the Respondent No.4 he has inter alia come to the conclusion that the Respondent No.4 is not entitled to permanent alternate accommodation. The said decision was also questioned by the Respondent No. 4 before the High Power Committee. The application filed by the Respondent No.4 before the High Power Committee came to be rejected by order dated 30/4/2011. 3 In the light of the aforesaid conspectus of facts, in our view, the Respondent No.4 cannot be allowed to continue in occupation of Flat No.5G even for a day. In that view of the matter, the above Writ Petition is required to 3 WPL-976.11 be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Deputy Collector (Encroachment) to take steps to evict the Respondent No.4 forthwith and if need be by taking police assistance. The Possession of Flat No. 5G to be handed over to the Petitioner latest by 20th October 2011. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]