dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6435 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6435 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6435 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2009 1. Ulgabai L. Mane & ors. Petitioners Vs. 1. District Deputy Collector, Respondents (Forcible Eviction) & Competent Authority & ors. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate i/b.Mr.L.H.Patil for the petitioners. Mrs.S.S.Bhende, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.S.G.Surana for respondent no.3. Mr.S.U.Kamdar with Mr.C.N.Gole for respondent no.4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA,J ANOOP V.MOHTA,J ANOOP V.MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 3rd March, 2009. : 3rd March, 2009. : 3rd March, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioners-slum dwellers have challenged the impugned order dated 21.09.2007 passed by the Deputy District Collector and the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Administrator amd Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, whereby maintaining the order of the Collector, the petitioners Appeal has been dismissed. The operative of the impugned order dated 9.9.2008 is as under: " ORDER ORDER ORDER ( 2 ) 1. Appeal is dismissed and the order of the Dy.Collector (Enc.) & Competent Authority, Bandra, dated 21-9-2007, is confirmed. 2. All the appellants should vacate the premises and shift to the transit accommodation provided or to be provided by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The appellant No.19 should also vacate his structure since he is not entitled for any protection as per law. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Parties be informed accordingly." 2. Admittedly, the matter is pending before the High Power Committee with regard to the basic challenge to the S.R.A. Scheme itself. Admittedly, the present impugned orders and proceedings are arising out of proceedings initiated under Sections 33 and 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, "Act of 1971). It is very clear that this Section need to be invoked only when for whatever reason, the persons including persons like the petitioners, who refuses to vacate the land or premises which is part and parcel of the Scheme. In such situation, the power of eviction need to be exercised by the Competent Authority. In the present case, that has been done. Firstly by the basic Authority and thereafter by the Appellate Authority, on a basic foundation that admittedly, the Scheme has been sanctioned in the year 2003. The ( 3 ) basic document is in the name of three societies. Therefore, the contention that the application filed by three societies for amalgamation is rejected and/or not attained finality that according to me cannot be the reason to interfere with the order of eviction as passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The S.R.A. Scheme and any challenge to the same, as noted, is already pending before the High Power Committee as constituted by the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, the merit of the Scheme can be gone into by the said Authority only. The Authority under this Section has no power or jurisdiction to interfere with the same. The power is restricted only to see whether the eviction order can be passed or not. Having once come to the conclusion based upon the material available on record, I see on that ground also the impugned orders cannot be interfered with. 4. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 5. The petitioners have filed Civil Application No.183/09 for amendment. The learned counsel for the petitioners makes statement that they are not pressing the amendment application. Civil Application No.183/2009 is accordingly disposed of as not pressed. ( 4 ) 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the effect and operation of this order be stayed. 7. Considering the fact that the Scheme is already sanctioned and only at the instance of these petitioners, I am not inclined to now stay the present proceedings further. However, the petitioners, if ready to give undertaking to vacate and shift to the transit accommodation as already directed, within one week, on this condition, the respondents are directed not take further coercive action for two weeks from today. If such undertakings are not filed, the respondents are free to take steps as per impugned order. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)