WP 10360 of 09 1 SSK/40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10360 OF 2009 Prabhavati Shetty ....Petitioner Versus High Powered Committee & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. J. S. Chandnani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. I. G. Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. M. M. Malvankar, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. Vikas Warekar, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED :26TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the High Powered Committee under which she was held entitled for one tenement admeasuring 225 sq.ft.. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that inspite of the fact that she was occupying two separate and independent premises admeasuring 270 sq.ft. each, she was held eligible for only one tenement. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 , 2 and 5 respectively admits that the Petitioner was in possession of two independent structures admeasuring about 270 sq. ft each. They further admit that in accordance WP 10360 of 09 2 with the rehabilitation scheme, the Petitioner is entitled for two independent alternative premises admeasuring about 225 sq.ft. carpet area each and they are ready to give these premises to the Petitioner in Rehab Commerical Sanctioned Use Component Building. They further state that in addition to these two premises admeasuring 225 sq.ft.each, the Petitioner will also be given 90 sq.ft. area in the sale component. The statements of the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 respectively are accepted. 3. The Petitioner makes a grievance of the suitability of the premises. However, this issue cannot be considered in this writ petition in view of the provisions of Regulation 1.3 of Appendix IV under which all eligible hutment are to be rehabilitated in situ and in the same plot as far as possible. In the light of above statement, in my opinion, the grievance of the Petitioner will not survive. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 4. Mr. Chandnani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at this stage seeks continuation of status-quo granted earlier for a period of two weeks. In the interest of justice, the status-quo granted earlier is continued for a period of two weeks from today. (R. V. MORE, J.)