1 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1530 OF 2010 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1213 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1530 OF 2010 1. Shri Sayed Anwar Gaffar, Aged-35 years, Occ. Business, 2. Shri Abdul Rashidali Mohd, Aged 38 years, Occ. Business. 3. Mrs. Hanifa Begum, Aged-58 years, Occ. House Wife. 4. Shri Sayed Gaffar Sujauddin, Aged-56 years, Occ. Plumber. 5. Shri Mohd. Rafi Raisuddin, Aged-36 years, Oc. Business. 6. Shri Mohd. Rafik Mohd. Safi, Aged-39 years, Occ. Business. 7. Shri Pawankumar C. Jain, Aged-40 years, Occ. Business. 8. Shri Chattarlal B. Jain, Aged-67 years, Occ. Business. 9. Shri Manoharlal Thuthkar, Aged-50 years, Occ. Business. 10. Shri Suresh B. Gange, Aged-45 years, Occ. Business. 11. Hanuman Colony Hitwardhak Committee, Through its Member Ramchandra Narayan Dukhand. 2 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 12. Hanuman Hitwardhak Society, Through its Member.. Petitioners Ramchandra Narayan Dukhand. ... Petitioners All Adults, Indian Inhabitants, Residing at Hanuman Hitwardhak CHS Ltd. CTS No.30(Pt), Golibar Road, Jawahar Nagar, Village Bandra, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. Versus 1. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division, 1st floor, Old Secretariat, Kala Ghoda, Mumbai. 2. The Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board, (A MHADA Unit), 3rd floor, Grihanirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. 3. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Through its Chief Executive Officer, 5th floor, Grihanirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 01. 4. Hanuman Hitwardhak CHS Ltd. CTS No.30(Pt), Golibar Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055. 5. Shivalik Ventures Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.746, Staney Fernandis Wadi, D.S. Babrrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028. 6. The State of Maharashtra, (Summons to be served on the Ld. Govt. Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, Rule 4, of the Code of 3 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 Civil Procedure, 1908). 7. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Through Station Commander, 411 Air Force Station, Cottongreen, Mumbai. ... Respondents. Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. N.V. Gangal, Mr. Anup N. Deshmukh, Ms.Anjali Awasthi and Mr.Raman Jaibhave i/b Mr.Moin Khan for the Petitioners. Mr. Milind More, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Patil for Respondent No.3. Mr. J. Reis for Respondent No.4. Mr. P.K. Dhakhephalkar, Senior Advocate, i/b Divekar & Co. for respondent No.5. ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1213 OF 2010 1. Mr. Ramchandra Narayan Dukhande 2. Mr. Ramesh Vasant Manjarekar 3. Mr. Prakash Sahadev Jagtap 4. Smt. Kusum Mohan Kale 5. Smt. Ratnaprabha Rajan Patel 6. Mr. Deepak Gangaram Gamare 7. Mr. Sitaram Gunaji Halade 8. Mr. Sabe Tunnisa Moharam Shaikh 9. Mr. Janu Ramchandra Gaikwad 4 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 10. Mr. Mangesh Tulshiram Tambe Son of Late Sangeeta Tulshiram Tambe. 11. Smt. Chandraprabha Shankar Panchal 12. Smt. Sonali Srikant Malkar 13. Mr. Srikant Vasudev Malkar 14. Mr. Shashikant Soma Sawant 15. Smt. Omnna Shashidharan Edwana 16. Mr. Pravin Yashwant Shelar 17. Mr. Narayan Mahadev Achrekar 18. Smt. Shradha Dattaram Parab 19. Mr. Prakash Shivaji Kuveskar 20. Mr. Dilip Raghunath Parkar 21. Mr. Sadashiv Balu Nirmal 22. Smt. Satyavati Vasant Lad 23. Smt. Virnal Narsing Pal 24. Smt. Lata Vishwanath Shetty 25. Smt. Anni Shiddu Shetty 26. Smt. Karuna Krishna Mohite 27. Mr. Vishnu Sabaji Sawant 28. Smt. Vijaya Vilas Gawde 29. Mr. Mohd. Yakub Mansuri 30. Mr. Narayan Shankar Sawant 5 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 31. Mr. Bhau Narayan Sawant 32. Mr. Narayan Bhau Sawant 33. Mr. Vittal Dagdu Shinde 34. Mr. Krishna Sakharam Khanvilkar 35. Mr. Daji Sonu Dhuri 36. Mr. Rajan Ramchandera Mahendrakar 37. Mr. Sahadev Mahadev Girkar 38. Smt. Sushma Ganesh Walia Wife of Mr. Ganesh Mahendra Walia 39. Mr. Bhandu Laxman Sakpal 40. Smt. Sushila Nana Mhatre 41. Mr. Santaram Babu Mashuk 42. Smt. Kalawati Krishna Chande 43. Smt. Kunda Bhikaji Padyal D/o. Smt. Anusaya Bhikaji Padyal 44. Mr. Jagannath Ravaji Rasam 45. Aishabi Karamatali Sheikh 46. Mr. Mohan Gopal Kottarath 47. Mr. Shaikh Mohammed Hussain 48. Smt. Nirmala Surendra Kumar Jain 49. Mr. Chandrakant Shankar Chindarkar 50. Mr. Sayed Akbar Gaffar 51. Smt. Rahima Munir Sheikh Wife of Late Munir Karim Sheikh 6 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 52. Mr. Tukaram Raghnath Achrekar 53. Mr. Ramesh Rama Kamtekar 54. Mr. Gajanan Dhakatoo More 55. Mr. Shankar Mahadev Ninave 56. Mr. Mohd. Munaf Mansuri 57. Smt. Dulari Ramfer Gujar Wife of Mr. Ramfer Mathura Gujar 58. Mr. Mohammed Hussein Qureshi 59. Mr. Timmappa Yasu Pujari 60. Mr. Prakash Shantaram Valanju 61. Mr. Santosh Balkrishna Chavan 62. Mr. Shantaram Sitaram Kasabale 63. Mr. Noorjahan Husain Sheikh 64. Mr. Bakshi Singh Nagi 65. Mr. Mahadev Vithobha Shinde 66. Mr. Dilip Babaji Kadam 67. Mr. Punaji Mahadev Sawant 68. Old Tenant Smt. Suchita S. Sawant New Tenant Mr. Jaywant M. Jagtap. 69. Smt. Leelabai Nivrutti Sawant 70. Mr. Tarlochan Singh Bons 71. Mr. Nayan Singh Nayak 72. Smt. Anita Kanyya Khanda 73. Mr. Anii Balaram Surve 7 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 Son of Late Balaram Govind Surve 74. Mr. Dhanaji Bajirao Borkar 75. Mr. Bharat Ranpat Bhingane 76. Mr. Vasant Sridhar Jadhav 77. Mr. Dattaram Gopal Chavan 78. Smt. Sunita Ganpat Kudtarkar 79. Mr. Shivram Bhiva Parab 80. Mr. Devidas Vasant Redkar 81. Smt. Sairabi Amiruddin Sayed 82. Smt. Nita Ashok Patil 83. Mr. Krishna Rakhmaji Dhavle 84. Mr. Lalit Mahadev Dhamane 85. Mr. Sheikh Mohd. Dilshad 86. Smt. Sarita Dattatray Sawant Wife of Dattatray Soma Sawant 87. Mr. Mahabal Kukra Amin 88. Mr. Harish Shrinivas Bangera Son of Late Shrinivas Korag Bangera 89. Mr. Punaji Mahadev Sawant President/Trustee of Jai Hanuman Krida Mandal. 90. Mr. Anil Shriram Vishwakarma 91. Smt. Sumitra Shriram Vishvakarma 92. Mr. Sanjiva Annappa Pujari 93. Mr. Dharapal S. Vishwakarma 8 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 POA by Ramagya Mahesh Sharma 94. Mr. Kutty B. Shetty 95. Mr. Uday Kutty Shetty 96. Mr. Santosh Ramchandra Kesarkar 97. Mr. Rajendra Bhikaji Toraskar 98. Mr. Mahadev Bapruao Jagtap 99. Mr. Dharampal Shyamraj Vishwakarma B/o. Ramsumer Shyamraj Vishwakarma 100. Mr. Lilbihari Ramraksha Vishwakarma All are Adults, Indian Inhabitants, residing at Hanuman Hitwardhak SRA CHS. Ltd. CTS No.30(Pt.), Golibar Road, Village Bandra, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. 101. Mr. Jagannath Jayram Surve 102. Smt. Jayashree Pandurang Panchal 103. Mr. Dinesh Paramanand Sharma 104. Mr. Shah Abdul Kadar 105. Smt. Najuda Chandrakant Javalkar 106. Smt. Gopika Ladoba Aajgaonkar 107. Mr. Yashwant Laxman Bandiwadekar 108. Mr. Babu Gopal Kondake 109. Mr. Anant Pandurang Teli 110. Smt. Chamelidevi Radheshyam Singh 111. Mr. Subhash Mahadev Sawant 112. Mr. Satpal Vedprakash Kharbanda 9 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 113. Smt. Shantabai Ramchandera Lahane 114. Mr. Sanjay Krishna Ramane 115. Smt. Satyavati Eknath Talekar 116. Mr. Maruti Chandu Bhandare 117. Mr. Sudhir Babaji Ujal 118. Mr. Shantaram Dhondu Jagtap 119. Smt. Suman Gopal Kurpe 120. Mr. Babaji Gopal Ujal 121. Mr. Gajanan Shantaram Ghadigaonkar 122. Mr. Vijay Sakharam Chavan 123. Mr. Ramchandra Tukaram Rane 124. Mr. Chandrakant Mahadev More 125. Mr. Chandrashekhar S. Nair 126. Mr. Daulat Kushaba Kadam 127. Mr. Maruti Nivarutti Sawant 128. Mr. Lahu Shivram Raut 129. Mr. Hemant Kumar Tejraji Mehta 130. Mr. Narsappa Pentappa Irawati 131. Mr. Narsappa Pentappa Irawati 132. Mr. Siyaram Singh Gurucharan Singh 133. Mr. Yashwant Raghunath Ghogale 134. Mr. Shrikant Ravrane 10 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 135. Mr. Manohar Namdev Shenoy 136. Mr. Chirput Sitaram Gupta 137. Smt. Philomina Fransic Rodrigues 138. Mr. Madanraj Otarmalji Jain 139. Mr. Shreeramnivas Baijnath Mistry 140. Mr. Maheshchandra Tejrajji Mehta 141. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tejrajji Mehta 142. Mr. Narpatlal Tejrajji Mehta 143. Smt. Sushila Tukaram Bedarkar 144. Mr. Gopal Babu Shinde 145. Mr. Laxman Shankar Logde 146. Smt. Jyoti Jayprakash Sharma 147. Mr. Jaiprakash Chirajilal Sharma 148. Smt. Munidevi Hari Sharma 149. Smt. Girijabai Gorakh Sonavane 150. Mr. Manohar Vasant Chavan 151. Mr. Ramling Bapu Vatambe 152. Smt. Anita Tukaram Madav 153. Mr. Vilas Narang Parte All are Adult, Indian Inhabitants, residing at Ekta CHS Ltd. CTS No.30(Pt), Golibar Road, Village Bandra, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. 11 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 154. Mr. Arun Wamanrao Bhalerao 155. M. Chabinath Shivmangal Sharma 156. Smt. Sitabai Dattaram Mirjile 157. Mr. Tanaji Kanu Jethe 158. Mr. Shaikh Julfiqar Samsuddin 159. Mr. Sonu Sitaram Shinde 160. Mr. Ashok Ramchandra Gamre 161. Smt. Maya Bhau Sonavane 162. Smt. Vatsala Jairam Gamre 163. Smt. Sangeeta Suresh Jadhav 164. Mr. Lahu Narayan Ghadigavkar 165. Smt. Shantabai Yashwant Gamre 166. Mr. Ashok Pandurang Pawar 167. Mr. Raju Jeevan Gamre 168. Smt. Nanda Laxman Salvi 169. Mr. Milind Babu Kadam 170. Mr. Gautam Sakharam Kamble 171. Lt. Anusaya Sakharam Lamble (Ranjana Sakharam Kamble) 172. Mr. Santosh Kumar Dongre 173. Lt. Ashok Ramchandra Bhosekar (Laxmi Ashok Bhosekar) 174. Smt. Jankibai Baban Chavan 12 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 175. Smt. Jijabai Ganpat More 176. Mr. Mohd. Salim Shah 177. Mrs. Indresh Dinesh Sharma POA by Hari Babu Pawar 178. Mr. Ramprasad Kashyap POA by Suresh Ramchanera Talekar 179. Mr. Gautam Dhaku Pawar All are Adult, Indian Inhabitants, residing at Pradnya SRA CHS Ltd., CTS No.30(Pt), Golibar Road, Village Bandra, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. 180. Shri Shabbir M. Khan 181. Shri Vahid Shabbir Khan .. Petitioners Both are Adult, Indian Inhabitants, residing at Asthavinayak SRA CHS Ltd. CTS No.33(pt), 13(pt) Golibar Road, Village Bandra, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. Versus 1. Administrator and Divisional Commissioner ) Konkan Division, 1st floor, Old Secretariat, Kala Ghoda, Mumbai. 2. The Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board, (A MHADA Unit), 3rd floor, Grihanirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 13 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 5th floor, Grihanirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 01. 4. Hanuman Hitwardhak SRA CHS Ltd. CTS No.30(Pt), Golibar Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055. 5. Shivalik Ventures Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.746, Staney Fernandis Wadi, D.S. Babrrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028. 6. The State of Maharashtra, (Summons to be served on the Ld. Govt. Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908). 7. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Through Station Commander, 411 Air Force Station, Cottongreen, Mumbai. 8. Ekta CHS Ltd. CTS No.30(pt), Golibar Road, Village Bandra, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. 9. Pradnya SRA CHS Ltd. CTS No.30(pt), Golibar Road, Village Bandra, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. 10. Asthavinayak SRA CHS Ltd. .. Respondents CTS No.33(pt), 13(pt) Golibar Road, Village Bandra, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. 14 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 Ms. Anjali Awasthi i/b Parvinder Singh Sethi for the Petitioners. Mr. Milind More, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 and 6. Mr. Uttangale i/b Uttangale & Co. for Respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 14TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Chief Justice) Both these petitions challenge the permissions granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under the Development Control Regulations Nos. 33(10) i.e. (IOA) and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on the plots of the land bearing CTS No.13 (Part), 30 (Part) and 33(Part), situated at Santacruz (East), Mumbai Suburban District belonging to the Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority (for short, MHADA). The petitioners are some of the members of the registered Co-operative Housing Societies which are impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 8 to 10 in Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2010. The permissions are granted in favour of the developer- respondent No.5, in the said petition. The petitioners are, in fact, challenging implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the above lands. 2. The petitioners had challenged the above permissions in the appeals under section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, `Slum Act'). All the appeals came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 6th May, 2010, passed by the Administrator and the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Mumbai. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners have filed the present petitions. 15 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 3. The affidavits in reply have been filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 developer. The rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length for final disposal of the petitions. 4. The learned senior counsel for the respondents have opposed the petitions and submitted that the petitioners have raised frivolous contentions only to delay the project. The petitioners are individual members who have no locus standi to file the present petitions. Out of total 750 members of these societies, only 181 members have chosen to file the present writ petitions and out of them 18 members have already accepted the temporary alternative accommodation and, therefore, the petitions at the instance of members constituting less than 30% out of the total membership in the societies are not maintainable. It is the case of the developer that as per the revised letter of intent dated 20th August, 2009, issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, total 5079 slum dwellers including the eligible petitioners are entitled for rehabilitation and therefore, any orders passed in these petitions adverse to the developer will also adversely affect more than 4,800 slum dwellers who are not joined as party respondents. If the petition is entertained, it will delay the rehabilitation of such a large number of slum dwellers. According to the respondents, none of the petitioners is having any dwelling unit in the land bearing CTS No.13 (Part). Contention-I 5.1. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the land in question is not declared as a slum under Section 4 of the Maharashtra 16 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Slum Act”) nor has it been declared as slum rehabilitation area under Section 3(c)(i) of the Slum Act, 1971. It is submitted that the powers under Regulation 33(10) cannot be exercised unless the eviction is sought in respect of a scheme which is a slum rehabilitation scheme in respect of slum declared to be so under the provisions of the Slum Act. 5.2. The redevelopment project in question is being undertaken in a Scheme dated 9th April 1998 which was a broad scheme like a development plan under the provisions of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “MRTP Act”), whereas the eviction is sought to be invoked under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “MHADA Act”). The slum rehabilitation became functional for the first time only from 15th May 1998 which is after coming into force of the scheme, which was published under the Notification dated 9th April 1998. 6.1 It is submitted on behalf of respondents that Annexure II at page 98 of the compilation clearly indicates that the slum in question was censused and in support of the said contention the learned counsel for MHADA has also placed on record the Government Resolution dated 11th July 2001 which clearly indicates that a survey was undertaken for ascertaining the position of the slums as on 1st January 1995 and the said resolution covered the land in question. It is, therefore, submitted that once the slum was censused, it was not necessary to make a specific declaration of the same as the slum under Section 4 of the Slum Act or to issue a notification for declaring it as a slum rehabilitation 17 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 area under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act. 6.2. It is submitted that the legal contentions sought to be raised in these petitions have already been considered by two Division Benches of this Court. In Om-Sai Darshan Co-operative Housing Society and another vs State of Maharashtra and others, 2007 (1) Bom.C.R., 476, it is also contended that it has been specifically held in the above decisions that the slum rehabilitation scheme can be sanctioned in respect of a slum as defined in clause (ii) of Annexure II to Regulation 33(10). Under the said annexure, there can be a viable scheme on payment also. 6.3. Relying upon the above decisions, it is also contended that it is only the machinery which is available under the Slum Act that is being utilised for the purpose of removing the occupants of the land which is declared as slum area. In fact under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, steps have been taken to execute the redevelopment project which is accepted by 70% of the members of the three societies. 7. As far as the first contention of the petitioners that if there is a declaration under section 3B of the Slum Act, then, there would not be any occasion to go to section 3D thereof without complying with section 3C is concerned, to our mind, the issue stands concluded by the Division Bench Judgement of this Court reported in 2007 (1) BCR 476. Before the Division Bench the argument was that unless there was declaration issued under section 3C(i) of the Slum Act, declaring a particular area to be a slum rehabilitation area, the letter of intent (LOI) for implementation of the slum redevelopment scheme could not 18 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 have been issued. Reliance was placed upon the judgement of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2004 (3) BCR 14 (Ramkali Sitaram Khushwaha and Ors. Vs. Dy.Collector and Ors), the Division Bench analysed the scheme of the Slum Act and particularly Chapter 1A of the same and, thereafter, referred to both section 3B and 3C and held that the Amendments made by Maharashtra Act 6 of 1997 to section 3C (1) of the Slum Act was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The position prior to and subsequent to the amendment was noticed thereafter and it was held that a general scheme under section 3B of the Slum Act can be framed either by the State Government or by SRA with the prior approval of the State Government. Referring to D.C.Regulation 33(10), this is what is observed in paras 19 and 20 by the Division Bench:- “19. In the present case we are dealing with the scheme of slum redevelopment which is governed by Regulation 33(10). A General Scheme under section 3-B of the Slum Act can be framed either by the State Government or by SRA with the prior approval of the State Government. However, the scheme under clause 33(10) is to be approved in individual cases by the SRA. Clause (II) of Annexure to the said Regulation provides that for the purpose of Regulation 33(10), a slum means that area which is either censused or one which is declared and notified under the Slum Act. It provides that the slum shall also mean areas pavement stretches hereafter notified as slum rehabilitation areas. The clause provides that if any area fulfills conditions laid down in section 4 of the Slum Act to qualify as a slum area and has been either censused or declared and notified as slum, it shall be deemed to be and treated as Slum Rehabilitation Areas. The said clause also provides that censused means those slums located on lands belonging to Government, any undertaking of Government, or to Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation and incorporated in the records of the 19 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 land owning authority as having been censused in 1976, 1980 or 1985 or prior to 1st January 1995. Thus, for the purpose of scheme under Regulation 33(1), the following areas are Slum Rehabilitation areas; (a) any area which fulfills the conditions laid down in section 4 of the Slum Act which is declared and notified as such and (b) slum rehabilitation area declared as such by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority fulfilling the conditions laid down in section 4 of the Slum Act to qualify as slum area and/or required for implementation of any slum rehabilitation project. Regulation 33(1) contemplates that there can be redevelopment of slums including pavements. The slums are defined by clause II. The slums mean either censused slums or slums declared and notified as such under the Slum Act. Clause II also defines the word censused which means slums located on lands belonging to Government or Mumbai Municipal Corporation and incorporated in records of the land owning authority as having been censused in 1976, 1980 or 1985.” “20. On plain reading of the Annexure to Regulation 33(1)) it is obvious that for sanction of a scheme governed by the said Regulation in respect of a parcel of land, it is not necessary to have a declaration of the particular parcel of land as a slum rehabilitation area in exercise of power under section 3-C(1) of the Slum Act. The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme can be sanctioned in respect of a slum as defined in clause II of Annexure to Regulation 33(10). Under the said Annexure there can be a scheme for a viable stretch of pavement also. The learned Single Judge deciding Ramkali’s case was not concerned with a scheme under D.C.Regulation No. 33(10). The proposition laid down by him will have to be read as one confined to the situation before him. Question No.1 is, therefore, answered in the negative. The question No.2 has been also answered in the foregoing paragraphs.” 20 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 8. Therefore, for the reasons indicated by the Division Bench, it will not be possible to agree with Mr.Rajyadhyaksha that if there is a declaration under section 3B, then, the Authorities cannot resort to section 3D without first going through the mechanism stipulated by section 3C. The Self-same arguments canvassed must, therefore, be rejected. 9. Mr.Dhakephalkar’s reliance upon the other Division Bench decision reported in 2005 (3) All M.R. 889 is equally well founded. Dealing with somewhat identical contentions, this is what is observed by the Division Bench in Amba Chawl’s case in paras 7 and 8:- “7. Development Control Regulation 33(1) permits redevelopment of slums whose inhabitants’ names and structures appear in the electoral roll prepared on or before 01-01-1995. A slum has been defined in 33(10) II to mean those areas which have been censused or declared and notified in the past or under the Slum Act after it was enacted in 1971. Therefore, a slum is not just an area which has been declared a slum under section 4 of the Slum Act. The issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Slum Act is not a prerequisite for an area to be considered a slum rehabilitation area. Censused slums have also been defined as those which are located on lands belonging to the government or any undertaking of the government or the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and which have been censused in 1976, 1980, 1985 or prior to 01-01-1995. There is no dispute that the present area is owned by the Corporation. Nor is there any dispute that the slums located thereon have been censused prior to 1995.” “8. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the provisions of the Slum Act cannot be invoked unless there is a declaration made under 21 W.P.(L) Nos.1530/10 a/w 1213/10 section 4 that the area is a slum area, is without merits. The provisions of sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act have been invoked by the respondents in order to evict the slum dwellers from the area which is a censused slum. It is only the machinery which is available under the Slum Act that is being utilised for the purposes of removing the occupants from a land which is declared a slum area. In fact under the D.C. Regulations steps can be taken to evict those hutment dwellers who do not join a rehabilitation project willingly. The provisions clearly stipulate that if the hutment dwellers do not join the scheme within 15 days after a slum rehabilitation project has been approved, then action under the provisions of the Slum Act including sections 33 and 38 as amended from time to time can be taken against the hutments. All those who do not join the project lose the right to any built up tenement and their tenement can be taken over