1Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 7613 of 2011. Prakash K. Dhuri .. .. Petitioner. Versus The Dy.Collector (Enc. & Rem)Bandra.. Respondents and others. WITH WRIT PETITION No. 7535 of 2011 Vishnu Shivram Gotal .. Petitioner. Versus The Dy.Collector (Enc. & Rem)Bandra.. Respondents and others. 2Ladda Mr Manoj P. Mhatre, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr D.A.Nalawade, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr Arif Bookwala, Senior Advocate with Mehak Shetty i/by Sasidharan for Respondent No.2. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 20th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr Mhatre, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Bookwala, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr Narula, learned A.G.P. These two writ petitions pertain to the proceeding under Section 35 of the Slum Rehabilitation Act,1971, (the said “Act” for short) 2. Respondent No.1, in exercise of his power under Section 33 of the said Act, directed the petitioners' eviction. This order is confirmed by respondent No.4 in an appeal under Section 35 of the said Act. The respective petitioners are held eligible for permanent alternative accommodation. Respondent No.1 by way of rent in lieu of the transit accommodation directed respondent No.2 to pay to the petitioners an amount of 3Ladda Rs.7,000/- per month. This amount is increased to Rs.10,000/- by Respondent no.4- the Appellate Authority. 3. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be that the premises in their occupation is not required to be demolished in order to redevelop the property in question. This submission is specifically denied by Mr Bookwala, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2. It is for Respondent No.2 Developer to decide whether the petitioners' premises is required to be demolished in order to carry redevelopment on the property in question. It is the specific stand of respondent No.2 that the redevelopment cannot be carried unless the premises in occupation of the petitioners is demolished. The Court cannot substitute the opinion of respondent No.2. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the writ petitions in my writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)