SSK/910 1 WP/9538.09(GROUP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9538 OF 2009 Shaikh Gulab ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9539 OF 2009 Subhash Chandra Sitaram Yadav ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9540 OF 2009 Laxman Baharuji Patkare ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9541 OF 2009 Maurya Ashok Chintamani ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9542 OF 2009 Noorbai Abdul Rahaman Shaikh ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9543 OF 2009 Shanta Govind Shelke ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents SSK/910 2 WP/9538.09(GROUP) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9544 OF 2009 Saira M. Sayyed ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9545 OF 2009 Laxmi Babya Shelke ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9547 OF 2009 Sonu Kondu Zore ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9549 OF 2009 Gulab Chandra R. Yadav ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9552 OF 2009 Shamim Abdulla ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9553 OF 2009 Dinesh Lalji Makwana ....Petitioner Versus Dy.Collector (ENC) Bandra Griha Nirman Bhavan & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 1A. Mr. J. G. Reddy, for respondent nos. 2 & 3. SSK/910 3 WP/9538.09(GROUP) CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 29TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: The facts of all the petitions are similar, and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioners claim to be occupants of CTS Nod.455, 484 and 464. A Slum Rehabilitation Scheme was sanctioned by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under DC Regulation 32(10) in respect of these survey nos.. Initially, there was a challenge to the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme before this Hon’ble Court. However, the petitioners were directed to approach the High Power Committee. The petitioners, admittedly, did not approach the High Power Committee. The Competent Authority, thereafter, passed an eviction order against the petitioners under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R) Act, 1971 (in short “the Act”). This order was challenged by each of the petitioner by filing separate appeal under Section 35 of the Act before the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. The appeal of each of the petitioner was disallowed, and therefore, the above petitions are filed before this Court. The learned Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, has recorded the finding that out of the 13 appeals , the appellants in 5 appeals have already been held eligible for alternative SSK/910 4 WP/9538.09(GROUP) permanent accommodation. The appellants in remaining 8 appeals were not held eligible as their family members were held eligible. The learned Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division also held that the remedy of appellants who were not held eligible is to approach the Slum Rehabilitation Authority by way of an appeal and they cannot make any grievance in proceedings under Section 35 of the Act. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority. 3. Be that as it may, a statement is made by Mr.Reddy, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 that after passing of the impugned order and during the pendency of these petitions, the structure which the petitioners in the above petitions are claiming to have occupied has already been demolished. This statement is not disputed by Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and in fact, he accepted the same inasmuch as he amended the petitions to that effect. 4. Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme was not in accordance with law and he wanted to argue about the legality of the same. However, in my view, the legality of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme cannot be allowed to be challenged in the proceedings which arise out of the provisions of Sections 33, 38 and 35 of the said Act. I have already mentioned that the petitioners initially SSK/910 5 WP/9538.09(GROUP) challenged this scheme before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench directed the petitioners to approach the High Power Committee. However, the petitioners have not availed of this remedy. 5. Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to amended prayer clause (C-1) by which permission was sought to collect the petitioners’ valuables, household articles from the site during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions. He also invited my attention to the petitioners’ representation at Exhibit “E”. Mr. Warunjikar, learned counse,l on the basis of the aforesaid amendment submitted that the competent authority at least be directed to return the household articles. This submission of Mr. Warunjikar is opposed by Mr.Bhosale, learned AGP appearing for the Competent Authority. He submitted that the petitioners can always approach the Competent Authority along with the list in this regard. 6. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the petitions are disposed of by passing the following order: 1. The writ petitions are dismissed. 2. The petitioner in each petition is at liberty to apply to respondent no.1-A for returning of the household articles/valuables within a period of two weeks from today. SSK/910 6 WP/9538.09(GROUP) 3. In the event, the petitioners make such an application within a stipulated time, the respondent no.1-A shall decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter. (RANJIT MORE, J.)