*1* wpl.1891.1892.1893.11.group.901.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (Lodging) No.1891 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION (Lodging) No.1892 OF 2011 Mahendraprasad Lalbahadur Gupta. ..Petitioner -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (Lodging) No.1893 OF 2011 Lalbahadur Niranjan Gupta. ..Petitioner -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.A.S.Patil, for the Petitioners in all petitions. Ms.Mugdha Joshi, AGP, for the Respondents/ State. Mr.J.G.Reddy, for the SRA. Mr.S.G.Surana, for the Respondent No.4. Mr.H.J.Lulia, for the Respondent No.3. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 16th September, 2011. P.C.: 1 By these Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the Administrator and Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai dated 02.09.2011. 2 As far as the Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1891/2011 is concerned i.b. by Mahendraprasad Lalbahadur Gupta, he had filed an Appeal being Appeal No.363/2011 which has been dismissed. *2* wpl.1891.1892.1893.11.group.901.sxw 3 The dispute concerns the property being CTS Nos.416(part), 419, 419/1 to 13, 420, 420/1 to 21, 424 (part), 425 and 425/1 to 16 situate at Kanheri, Taluka : Borivali. 4 All Respondents are duly served and they have appeared through the counsel. 5 It is stated in the first Writ Petition that the Petitioner has been carrying on business in the name and style “Sai Video Cable” since the year 1980. He has been found eligible inasmuch as his Shop No.6 which is situated on the property is a commercial structure. According to the Petitioner, his name was included in Annexure-II which is a list of eligible and ineligible slum dwellers residing in the suit property. The Petitioner is, thus, eligible for a commercial structure and he has relied upon several documents including the survey, Annexure-II, so also, reverified Annexure-II. 6 It is stated that upon the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme coming into force, the cooperative housing society of the slum dwellers approached, through the Developer, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and thereupon necessary approvals and permissions were given. It appears that the issue of the Petitioner’s eligibility was sought to be reopened by filing complaints to the Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority. It is stated that the issue of eligibility remains inconclusive inasmuch as although the Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority held against the Petitioner, his appeal to the High Power Committee is pending. 7 In the meanwhile, the application was made to the competent authority for removal of the Petitioner from the existing premises/site, which application has been allowed although it was brought to the notice of the competent authority, according to the Petitioner, that the issue of eligibility is pending. *3* wpl.1891.1892.1893.11.group.901.sxw 8 In these circumstances, the Petitioner should not have been held to be ineligible for the structure for which he was held to be eligible as per Annexure-II. It is stated in the Annexure-II, it is shown that the Petitioner’s father, namely, Lalbahadur Gupta is entitled to a commercial structure and the Petitioner is entitled to a residential structure, so also, a commercial structure. Thus, to the Petitioners in all three Writ Petitions, three structures ought to have been given to the Petitioners in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme as a part of rehabilitation. However, erroneously holding that there was a dividing wall in the commercial structure and a part of same was used for residence, that it has been now concluded by the authorities that the father and son cannot be held to be eligible for separate structures and they should be only allotted one structure which would be residential-cum- commercial structure. 9 Several contentions have been raised before me by the parties. 10 In these three petitions, the issue is the entitlement of the Petitioners in respect of three structures and whether, Annexure-II which has been already prepared, is capable of being revised and if at all it has been revised once, whether, the issue of the Petitioners’ eligibility can be reopened by an exercise, which is termed as review. 11 When these petitions were argued, a suggestion was given to the parties that it would be appropriate if they can settle this dispute amicably. But, it appears that there is some difference of opinion with regard to the Petitioners’ entitlement, between the Petitioners, cooperative housing society and the Developer. However, after detailed arguments, both parties agree that the Writ Petitions can be disposed of with the following orders and directions:- (a) That the Petitioners’ eligibility qua the structures that *4* wpl.1891.1892.1893.11.group.901.sxw are claimed by them relying on Annexure-II which has been prepared way back in the year 2005 and reverified on 06.08.2007 and whether, the Petitioners are, therefore, entitled to two shops and one residential structure based thereon, shall be decided by the Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority afresh. (b) This denovo exercise shall be undertaken by the Secretary of Slum Rehabilitation Authority on the basis of the documents which are annexed to these petitions and further additional documents produced including the letter of intent and plans which are appended thereto. (c) The Secretary of the SRA shall not be influenced, in any manner, by his earlier orders and directions. He shall also not be influenced by any report which has been forwarded by the office of the Additional Collector (Encroachment & Removal). The Secretary shall also not be influenced by the orders of the competent authority and confirmed by the Administrator & Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai which are impugned in these petitions. (d) The exercise as above shall be undertaken and concluded by the Secretary of SRA before 16th December, 2011, after hearing the Petitioners, so also, all affected parties. (e) All contentions in relation to the eligibility of the Petitioners are kept open. (f) Till the issue of eligibility of the Petitioners is decided, *5* wpl.1891.1892.1893.11.group.901.sxw the Builder & Developer, so also, the cooperative housing Society shall not, in any manner, allot the shops which are delineated and demarcated against the names of Petitioners in the rehab component in the building that has been constructed on the said plot. Equally, the Developer and the Society shall not allot one residential tenement in the rehab component to anybody else who is found to be eligible as per Annexure-II, until the Secretary decides the above issue. (g) The Petitioners shall also not be evicted or removed from their existing premises, so also, they shall not be demolished until the issue of their eligibility is decided in terms of the above directions. (h) In the light of the above orders and directions, the Petitioners withdraw their appeals which are pending before the High Power Committee and they would stand dismissed as withdrawn. (i) The Writ Petitions are disposed of in these terms. No order as to costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)