1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.1862 OF 2009 Shree Siddhi Sagar S.R.A. Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Charlottee Stanley Furtado and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Sanjiv Sawant with Mr. H.V. Kode for the Petitioner. Mr. Bharat Mehta i/b Aru Sapkal & Co. for Respondents 1, 2 and 3. Ms T.H. Puranik for the BMC – Respondent No.4. Mr. D.A. Nalawade with Mr. S.P. Patil i/b G.D. Utangale & Co. for Respondent No.5. Mr. Mandar Goswami, AGP for Respondent No.6. Mr. Samir M. Suryavanshi for Respondent No.7. Mr. P.G. Lad for Respondent No.8. ...... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 24th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Petition was heard substantially yesterday and on the request of the learned counsel was directed to stand over for today in order to enable the parties to arrive at a workable arrangement. 2. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the Commissioner, Konkan Division on 13th July, 2009 by which an order of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner dated 25th September, 2 2008 was set aside and the competent authority was directed to take necessary steps for the re-verification of the claim of the First, Second and Third Respondents prior to undertaking the process of demolition. The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is being implemented and the question that arises is as regards the eligibility of the First, Second and Third Respondents. 2A. On the request of counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, the developer is permitted to be added as the Seventh Respondent. Mr. Lad, sought to intervene on behalf of Mr. Prabhakar Shinde. On the request of counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Shinde is added as Respondent No.8 to these proceedings. Both the added Respondents are represented by counsel who undertake to file their Vakalatnama forthwith. 3. Insofar as the eligibility of the First Respondent is concerned that has been accepted and Sr. No.116 of of Annexure II confirms her eligibility. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has stated that the First Respondent will be provided alternate 3 commercial transit accommodation at the site in lieu of existing Shop No. 5 which has been found to be eligible. Counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent states that in view of the statement which has been made on behalf of the Petitioner, the First Respondent shall vacate the existing premises, in any event by 5th December, 2009. 3A. Insofar as the Second and Third Respondents are concerned, it has been stated on behalf of the Petitioner that the aforesaid Respondents shall be paid the same compensation which is being allowed to members who have been found to be eligible to participate in the scheme viz. Rs.7,500/- for residential occupants and Rs.8,500/- for commercial occupants. The Municipal Corporation, it has been agreed, shall carry out a survey of the shop which Respondent No.2 claims to be in occupation of at 2.00 p.m. on 26th November, 2009 and the survey report shall be made available to the competent authority and to the parties in order to facilitate the process of verification. The survey will be conducted by a duly authorized officer of the Municipal Corporation. Counsel appearing 4 on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents stated that the premises shall upon the completion of the survey be vacated on or before 5th December, 2009. The payment of monthly compensation shall continue to be made until the eligibility is decided by the competent authority. 3B. The competent authority is directed to dispose of the question of eligibility after hearing all the concerned parties including the First, Second, Third and Eighth Respondents and the Petitioner. It would be open to the parties to file representations before the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, ‘G’ South Ward – the Fourth Respondent to the Petition within a period of one week placing on the record such documentary evidence as they may seek to rely upon. It is needless to add that the competent authority shall decide the question of eligibility on the basis of the documentary evidence that may be produced and in accordance with the existing policy. Such a determination shall be made within a period of four weeks from today. Since no other directions have been sought and since the aforesaid order has been passed on the agreement of all the 5 concerned parties, the Petition shall stand disposed of. 4. In the event that the Second and Third Respondents fail to abide by their statement to vacate the premises by 5th December, 2009, it would be open to the Municipal Corporation to take necessary steps for obtaining possession of the premises. ****