((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3049 OF 2006 Amrutlalwadi SRA Co-op. Hsg. Society (Proposed) and another Petitioner versus Baijnath Ramdeo Jaiswar & ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.127 OF 2008 Deputy Collector (Enc/Removal) Petitioner versus Baijnath R. Jaiswar & anr. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.615 OF 2008 Jivanprsad Mahadev Gupta & anr. Petitioners versus Deputy Collector (Enc.) and ors. Respondents WP No.3049/2006, WP (L) NO.127/2008 :- S.A.Abhyankar for petitioners. L.J.Pandey for respondentsr 1 and 2 in WP 3049/2006 and WP (L) 127/2008. D.A.Nalawade, GP a/w Ms.A.Calcuttawala, AGP for petitioners in WP (L) 127/2008 and for respondent no.8 in WP 3049/2006. Archana Joshi for respondent MCGB. M.M.Vashi for petitioners in WP (L) No.615/2008. G.D.Utangale i/by Utangale & Co. for respondent no.3 in WP (L) No.127/2008. WP (L) No.615/2008 :- M.M.Vashi for petitioners. L.J.Pandey for respondents 2 and 3. Jyoti Chavan for respondent no.4. ((-2-)) MST S.A.Abhyankar for respondents 5 and 6. D.A.Nalawade, G.P. a/w M.s.A.Calcuttawala for R-1 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 18th March 2008 PC : 1. Insofar as Writ Petition No.3049 of 2006 is concerned, the same is already admitted. Hence, no further order is required at this stage. However, it is necessary to place on record that the petitioners and private respondents have amicably arrived at consent terms which have been reduced into writing. The said consent terms were placed before the Court on the earlier occasion. One of the direction sought under the said consent terms is that the land in dispute be declared as Slum Area. I have already expressed my reservation as to accepting such consent terms permitting two private parties to declare any land as Slum Area on their own. That is a matter which has to be examined by the competent authority appointed under the Slum Act for that purpose and this subjective satisfaction would be a relevant factor for issuing such declaration. Be that as it may, there is additional reason why said consent terms cannot be the basis to dispose off the writ petition inasmuch as petitioners in ((-3-)) MST Writ Petition (L) No.615 of 2008 have asserted that the arrangement decided between the private parties in the leading petition is prejudicial to the interest of 36 petitioners. Even though the petitioners in the later petition are asking for the same relief as sought in the remaining petition, in other words, the petition cannot be disposed off on the basis of consent terms as presented before this Court. It will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 2. Insofar as Writ Petition (L) No.127 of 1980 is concerned the said writ petition is filed by the competent authority questioning the correctness of the self same judgement and order passed by the Appellate Authority. The competent authority in addition is challenging the order passed by the appellate authority condoning delay of almost 26 years in filing of the appeal. As the main judgement in appeal is already subject matter of challenge before this Court in the leading writ petition which has been already admitted, even this writ petition deserves admission. Hence, Rule. To be heard with Writ Petition No.3049 of 2006. 3. Insofar as Writ Petition (L) No.615 of 2008 ((-4-)) MST is concerned, Rule. The relief claimed in prayer clause (a) is identical to the relief claimed in the leading writ petition which has been already admitted. With regard to prayers (b) and (c) of this writ petition, prima facie, those reliefs can be considered only by the Division Bench of this Court in view of the explanation to Rule 636 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. Counsel for the petitioners submits that for the time being, the petitioners will pursue their relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in this petition without giving up the reliefs in terms if prayers (b) and (c), which they would later on pursue at the appropriate stage. 4. This petition, however, has been opposed by the petitioners in the leading writ petition on the argument that these very petitioners had taken up Chamber Summons for being impleaded in the leading writ petition which was disposed off in terms of order dated 29th February 2008. According to the learned counsel, in view of the said order, it is not open to the petitioners in the present writ petition to pursue their remedy by way of present writ petition. It is not possible to countenance this submission. Inasmuch as, for the reasons recorded in the ((-5-)) MST order dated 29th February 2008, the prayer for impleadment of the petitioners herein was declined. That, however, does not preclude the same party from pursuing the relief claimed in terms of prayer clause (a) in terms of the writ petition which is identical with the leading writ petition. Counsel for the respondent no.4 herein has brought to my notice that although in paragraph no.3 of the writ petition the petitioners have asserted that they are filing this petition for themselves as well as 38 other persons named in Exhibit-A, Vakalatnaka or authority of those other persons named in Exhibit-A is not placed on record. Counsel for the petitioners herein submits that necessary authority and/or Vakalatnama of the said 38 persons will be filed in the registry. That be done within four weeks from today, failing which the petition to stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. It is made clear that the question whether the petitioners herein would be obliged to pay separate set of court fees would be considered by the office on its own merits and in accordance with law. 5. Petitioners to take steps to remove all ((-6-)) MST office objections within four weeks from today failing which the petition to stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. It is made clear that Writ Petition (L) Nos.127 of 2008 and 615/2008 tobe heard along with Writ Petition No.3049 of 2006. Mr.L.J.Pandey for respondents 1 and 2, Jyoti Chavan for respondents 3 and 4,, D.a.Nalawade, GP for respondent no.8, Archana Joshi for MCGB, G.D.Utangale for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.3049/2006 and Writ Petition (L) No.127/2008 and L.J.Pandey for respondents 2 and 3, Jyoti Chavan for respondent no.4, S.A.Abhyankar for respondents 5 and 6, D.A.Nalawade, G.P. for respondent no.1 in Writ Petition (L) No.615/2008 waive notice for respondents. 6. All petitions to be listed as per their turn in expedited category of writ petition in view of the order already passed in that behalf. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)