1 wp5464of2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5464 OF 2010 Bhavani Shankar Nathubhai Ozha & ors ... Petitioners. Versus The Dy. Collector (Enc/Rem) & ors ... respondents Mr.P.M. Palshikar, a/w Datta Mane for the Petitioner... Mr. M U. Pandey, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 16th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned for urgent production. 2. Production granted in view of the urgency. 3. Heard Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated 3rd July, 2010, passed by the Administrator and the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan, thereby the petitioner’s appeal Nos l48 and l5l of 2010 came to be disposed. The Deputy Collector (Encroachment and Removal) at the instance of respondent NO.2 Mr. Shah, directed the petitioners 2 wp5464of2010.sxw to vacate the Slum Structure and hand over the possession of the same to respondent No.2. In the event, petitioner’s failure to hand over vacant possession, the petitioner’s structure was directed to be demolished under the provisions of Maharashtra Slump Areas Improvement Clearnace and Redevelopment Act, l971. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing aforesaid appeal before Commissioner. However, same was also dismissed by the order dated 3.7.2010, which order is being challenged in the present petition. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioners are eligible for the permanent alternate accommodation. The impugned order reveals that the Respondent No.2 Developer is ready to offer transit accommodation or rent in lieu thereof. There are 1168 slums on the area in dispute. Except the petitioners, other occupants have already vacated their slums and shifted either to the transit accommodation or accepted the rent in lieu thereof. 6. Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel, submitted that the proposed society by name Ujjawal Housing Society of which the petitioners are members, has also submitted a proposal to develop the land, said proposal has been rejected. The society has challenged the letter of Intent in favour of present respondent No.2 and that dispute is pending before this Court. In my view, the said dispute has nothing to do with the present proceeding which are initiated u/s 35 of the Maharashtra Slums Area (Improvement, Clearance and 3 wp5464of2010.sxw Redevelopment) Act, l971. I find no substance in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)