1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.2178 OF 2009 Bhikaji M. Buchke ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. .... Ms Nutan Moily i/b Ms Manjusha S. Kumbhar for the Petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP for Respondents 3 and 4. Mr. S.G. Surana for Respondents 5 and 6. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 3rd November, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner seeks to impugn the validity of an order passed on 15th October, 2009 by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division in a statutory appeal arising out of an order passed by the competent authority under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. A Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under DCR 33(10) is being implemented on a plot of land bearing C.T.S. No. 195 (Part) and C.T.S. No.828 (Part) which is of the ownership of the 2 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority sanctioned a scheme on 9th May, 2005 and plans for a composite building were sanctioned on 6th December, 2005. The Fifth Respondent is a co-operative society formed of the occupants while the Sixth Respondent to these proceedings is a developer who is carrying out the work of construction. A notice to show cause was issued to the Petitioner by the competent authority and pursuant to a hearing, an order of eviction came to be passed under Section 33. The order was confirmed in appeal. 2. Before this Court it is an admitted position that the Petitioner has been found to be eligible to participate in the scheme. An agreement has been executed by the Petitioner with the co- operative society and the developer. Counsel appearing for the developer has during the course of the proceedings stated before the Court that the Petitioner would be provided permanent alternate accommodation and in the meantime, until the alternative premises are ready, a monthly rental payment of Rs.10,000/- towards the 3 commercial premises which is the amount agreed with the co- operative society. 3. The competent authority noted in its order that out of 154 hutment dwellers, 129 were found to be eligible, of which 124 had furnished their consents to the implementation of the scheme. Out of 129 who were found to be eligible, 110 have already shifted out. The competent authority noted that the work of development was being held up as a result of the failure of the remaining hutment dwellers to vacate their premises. The competent authority recorded the statement of the developer of his readiness and willingness to either provide transit accommodation or, as the case may be, monthly compensation in lieu thereof until such time as the permanent accommodation was made ready. 4. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner urged that the Petitioner is in occupation of premises in a corner of the land which is the subject matter of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and that 4 therefore, the work of development would not be hindered by the continued occupation of the Petitioner. Moreover, it was submitted that no development has taken place since 2005 when the letter of intent was issued. In order to allay the apprehension of the Petitioner, counsel appearing for the developer has placed on the record a copy of the revised letter of intent issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 6th April, 2009 in accordance with the amended provisions of D.C. Regulation 33 (10). 5. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the competent authority which has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. The Petitioner has entered into an agreement with the co- operative society and the developer under which permanent alternate accommodation is to be provided to the Petitioner. The Petitioner would have to vacate the premises which are in occupation at present in order to facilitate the implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Out of 129 hutment dwellers who are eligible, 110 have already vacated their premises. The assurance which has been 5 tendered before the Court to the effect that (i) the Petitioner would be paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month until the permanent alternate accommodation is made available and (ii) the Petitioner would be placed in occupation of permanent alternate accommodation being an eligible occupant is recorded and accepted. Counsel appearing for the developer has also stated that the rehabilitation tenement would be completed in any event within a period of two years from today and the Petitioner would be placed in occupation of the tenement. The statement is accepted. In these circumstances, no case for interference is made out. The Petition is accordingly rejected. *****