1 wp316-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa WRIT PETITION NO. 316 OF 2010 Arun V. Sapkal & Ors. .. Petitioners. v/s. The Deputy Collector (E/R) Chembur & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Mrs. Anjali R. Awasthi for the Petitioners. Mr. R. M. Patne, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6. Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent No.5. Mr. Chirag Balsara i/b. M/s. Divya Shah Associates for Respondent No.7. Mr. S.G. Surana for Respondent No.8. .... CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : AUGUST 10, 2010. P.C. Heard Ms. Awasthi, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Patne for Respondent No.1, Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent No.5, Mr. Balsara for Respondent No.7 and Mr. Surana for Respondent No.8. 2. The Notification under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (I.C and R) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Slum Act) 2 wp316-10 was issued by the Competent Authority thereby declaring an area admeasuring about 6398.70 square meter at village Taluka Kurla comprising out of City Survey No. 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 and 111, as a slum area, on 29th January, 2003. Survey Nos. 106, 107, 108 belong to private parties and Survey Nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 belong to the BMC. The Petitioners challenged the Notification by filing an Appeal before the Slum Tribunal. Since there was delay, application for condonation of delay was also preferred. By the impugned order the Petitioners' Appeal itself is dismissed and therefore the present petition. 3. Mr. Surana, the learned counsel for Respondent No.8 has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Petition. He submits that the Petitioners have challenged the Slum Notification under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act, so far as it relates to the BMC plot, and they are not disputing the legality of the Slum Notification, so far as it relates to the private land. He further submits that Petitioner No.1 is only the occupant of the structure on BMC plot and rests of the Petitioners' structures are on the private land. Therefore, Petition at the instance of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 is not maintainable. So far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, he has accepted the amount of Rs. 60,000/- 3 wp316-10 (Rs. Sixty thousand only), towards amount of rent in lieu of the transit accommodation and in addition to this, his wife has accepted the alternate transit accommodation. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners on the issue of maintainability of the Petition. The learned counsel for the Petitioners does not dispute that Petitioner No. 1 is occupant of the structure of the BMC plot and rests of the Petitioners are occupants of the structures on private plots. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 1 and his wife are in possession of two separate structures and therefore, they are entitled for two alternative structures. She admits that both Petitioner No. 1 and his wife have entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 7 and 8, for alternative accommodation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I find that the Petitioners have no locus to file the petition. Admittedly, plot CTS Nos. 106, 107 and 108 belong to private party and plot CTS Nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 belong to the BMC. The Petitioners have no grievance against the Notification Under the Slum Act, so far as it relates to the private 4 wp316-10 plots. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, since staying in the structures on the private plot, have no locus to file the present petition. So far as Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, his name is included in annexure II of the SRA Scheme and he is held eligible for alternative permanent accommodation. The name of Petitioner No. 1's wife is also included in annexure II, however she is not found eligible for alternate accommodation. The Petitioner has accepted an amount of Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. Sixty thousand only) from Respondent No. 7 towards amount of rent in lieu of the temporary transit accommodation. Mr. Surana, the learned counsel for Respondent No.8 makes a statement that the Petitioner No.1's wife has accepted the keys of alternate transit accommodation, namely, Room No. 327 which fact is denied by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Petitioner No.1 and his wife both have entered into an agreement with Respondent No.7 and 8 for alternative permanent accommodation. In the above facts and circumstances, Petitioner No. 1 is estopped by principle of promissory estoppel from challenging the Notification declaring BMC plot as a Slum Area. Consequently, he has no locus to file the Petition. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. [ R. V. MORE, J. ]