- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.790 OF 2008 PETITION NO.790 OF 2008 PETITION NO.790 OF 2008 M/s.Panchsheel Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha and other ...Petitioners vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mumbai and others ...Respondents MR.H.S.Anand for the petitioners Mr.S.G.Surana for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 8,2008 : APRIL 8,2008 : APRIL 8,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1 and Shri Surana for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, a substantive challenge is to the acquisition of land under section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The substantive prayer is for quashing the notification dated 15th January 2008 of acquisition of the property in dispute under section 14(1) of the said Act of 1971. The other substantive prayer in the petition is for directing the first Respondent not to enforce the notification dated 15th January 2008 thereby handing over the possession of the property in dispute - 2 - to the second and third Respondents and also not to settle the compensation for the abovesaid property. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that notice dated 22nd July 2006 was issued for acquisition of the land in dispute at the instance of the second and third respondents. The submission is that as the action of acquisition under section 14(1) of the said Act of 1971 has been taken at the instance of the second and third Respondents, the Authorities will allow the said Respondents to develop the property in dispute which is declared as a slum area. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that even the petitioners want the property subject matter of this petition to be acquired under section 14(1) of the said Act of 1971. He, however, reiterated that as the acquisition has been made at the instance of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Authorities will permit the said Respondents to redevelope the property subject matter of the petition by allowing the implementation of the slum redevelopment scheme. 5. Considering the scheme of the said Act of 1971 and the provision of section 14(1) of the said Act of 1971, the State Government has been given a power to acquire the land on the representation from the competent Authority in order to enable - 3 - the Authority to execute any work of improvement in relation to slum area or any building in such area or to redevelope any clearance area. On plain reading of said provision, it is obvious that the acquisition contemplated by sub section 1 of section 14 cannot be for the benefit of any individual or a society of slum dwellers. The purposes for which the property can be acquired have been incorporated in sub section 1 of section 14 of the said Act of 1971. Therefore, the submission that the property in dispute has been acquired at the instance of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 or for their benefit cannot be accepted. It is not necessary to go into the challenge by the Petitioners to the acquisition as even the Petitioners also desire that the property in dispute should be acquired under section 14(1) of the said Act of 1971. 6. The other dispute is as to who should develop the property by implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme. The said issue need not be gone into in this petition where the only substantive challenge is to the acquisition under section 14(1) of the said Act of 1971. Assuming that the proceedings for acquisition were initiated on the basis of the application made by the second and third Respondents, mere fact of making such application will not create any equity in favour of the Respondent nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the question as to whether the Petitioner can be allowed to develop the property or the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 can be allowed to develop the property - 4 - need not be gone into in this petition considering the scope of challenge and considering the substantive prayers made in this petition. For that purpose, the parties will have to take appropriate steps or to adopt appropriate proceedings. Subject to what is observed above, the challenge to the acquisition under section 14(1) of the said Act of 1971 at the instance of the Petitioner must fail. 7. Subject to what is observed above, Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE