1 srk pil-68-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.68 OF 2010 M/s. Jai Hanuman Shejar Samiti Co-op. Society Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others. ... Respondents Mr.O.R. Tiwari for the petitioner. Mr. Akil A. Kupade for Mr. D.A. Nalawade, for SRA. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Geeta Joglekar for MCGM. Mr. Mukesh Vashi i/by M/s. M.P. Vashi & Associates for respondent No.8. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, Assistant Government Pleader for State-respondent Nos.4 to 6. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Friday, March 11, 2011 P .C. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-society has prayed for various reliefs regarding rehabilitation of the members of the petitioner-society who are slum dwellers and claim to be in occupation of the land in question of village Valnai, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District, prior to 1.1.1995. It is not necessary to set out all the facts because Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and its officers, without prejudice to the contention that their cases have already been duly considered, states that the Municipal Corporation, to which the land in question belongs, is prepared once again to consider any documents which each individual occupant may submit to show that the concerned occupant is in possession of the premises in 2 srk pil-68-10.sxw question prior to 1.1.1995. Mr. Singhvi submits that such documents should be verified/certified by the concerned authority which had issued the original documents before they are submitted to the Corporation. 2. In view of the above, we dispose of this petition with a direction that if the members of the petitioner-society submit their documents in support of their claim that the concerned occupant is in possession of the premises in question on or prior to 1.1.1995 and the documents are verified and/or certified by the concerned authority which had issued the original documents, respondent No.2 i.e. the Assistant Municipal Commissioner of the concerned Ward will examine the documents and determine the eligibility of each individual occupant for allotment of permanent alternative accommodation which shall be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from today. 3. It is clarified that we have not granted any stay against the implementation of the rehabilitation scheme by respondent Nos.7 and 8. All contentions are kept open. Appeal is accordingly, disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.