1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2397 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2397 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2397 OF 2007 Gangaram Vyenkatya Yera ... Petitioner Versus Slum Rehabilitory Authority and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.A. Yadav for the Petitioner. Mr. J.G. Avadwad for R. No. 1. Ms. A.K.Savla for R.No. 2. Mr. Anuj Narulla i/by J.Narulla & Associates for R. No. 3. Mr.C.U. Singh, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Udeshi i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Intervenor. Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P. for R. No. 5. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 01, 2008 DATED: OCTOBER 01, 2008 DATED: OCTOBER 01, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner herein had approached this court seeking various reliefs. In so far as Prayer Clause (a) is concerned, by the order of this court dated 23.9.2008, this court held that the prayer Clause (a) does not survive. . The Petitioner’s name admittedly is in annexure No. II and is entitled for the commercial gala. The learned court, however, by its order dated 2 23.9.2008 observed that it is the case of the Petitioner that he has been allotted gala No. 6 in building No. 3 by way of transit accommodation and that he should be accommodated in the alternative permanent shop under the S.R.A. development scheme. The Petitioner claims that he is entitled for the allotment of shop No. 4 in building No. 1. . This court directed that the Petition can be disposed of if the Secretary of the society files a limited affidavit to the effect that Gala No. 6 in Building No. 3 is allotted to the Petitioner as permanent shop under the SRA development Scheme and that the Petitioner is the owner of the shop and that Respondent Society will not dispossess him if he continue to abide all the Rules and Regulations and bye laws. Pursuant to that an affidavit has been filed by Suresh Gopal Pawar, Chairman and authorised signatory of Respondent No. 3 society stating therein that the allotment of shop No. 6 in building No. 3 to the Petitioner above named is by way of permanent alternate accommodation and that Respondent No. 3 has never interfered with the possession and ownership of the Petitioner in respect of the said shop No. 6 in Building No. 3. . When the matter last came up for hearing, a grievance was made by the counsel for the Petitioner 3 that there was no agreement. The matter was adjourned today to enable the society and the builder to produce the agreement. A copy of the agreement signed by both society and the builder was handed over to the Petitioners today in the morning session. On behalf of the Petitioner, the learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is not willing to sign the same. The said agreements are taken and placed on record. . In our opinion, considering the earlier order of this court and affidavit filed and further considering the agreements placed on record, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, Petition dismissed. . We make it clear that the Petitioner has been allotted permanent alternate accommodation. If he is occupying any other premises within that area, the S.R.A. and the B.M.C. to take action against him according to law. (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)