1. wp 8409-11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8409 OF 2011 Rambali Shankar Yadav & Anr .. Petitioners Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Anr .. Respondents Mr. C.G. Gavnekar i/b M/s. Ramesh Pandey & Associates for the Petitioners Mr. D.A. Nalavade a/w Mr. J.G. Reddy for Respondent - S.R.A. Mr. Gaurav Joshi i/b Mr. Sanjeev R. Singh for Respondent No. 2 Mr. Rampal S Kohli for Respondent No. 4 CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 5th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The only contention of Mr. Gavnekar, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of High Power Committee suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of record in as much as the Committee has stated that since the petitioner is an Imla Malik, it cannot go into the petitioners' case in view of the judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No. 107 of 1996 decided on 8th 1 1. wp 8409-11.doc April, 2005. 3. Admittedly, in judgment dated 8th April, 2005 in L.P.A. No.107 of 1996, this Court has not considered the case of an Imla Malik. However, according to Shri. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, the petitioner is a slumlord and the slumlord has no right under the S.R.A. Scheme. We find from the impugned order that the Committee has not found the petitioner to be a slumlord but has referred to the petitioner as an Imla Malik. The later term is not defined in The Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. In the circumstances of the case, by consent of the parties, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Power Committee for a fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing both the sides. The Committee shall consider the matter not later than three months from the date parties appear before it. The parties are directed to appear before the Committee on 17th December, 2011. All contentions are kept open. 4. The order of status quo granted by this Court on 16th November, 2011 is vacated. 5. Rule is disposed of in above terms. [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ S.A. BOBDE, J ] 2 1. wp 8409-11.doc 3