1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2437 OF 2009 Laxman Tukaram Khade .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Shri O.P. Pandey i/b M/s. Pandey & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms Uma Palsule Desai, AGP, for Respondent No.1 and 5 to 7. Shri J.G. Reddy for the Respondent-SRA. CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED: APRIL 05, 2010 P.C: The affidavit in-reply tendered on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 along with the Exhibits thereto is taken on the record. 2. Heard. According to the petitioner, respondent No.13 started developing the property being CTS No.31/12, Survey No.126, Poisar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 under the slum rehabilitation scheme and issued Annexure- II wherein the name of the petitioner is 2 appearing as an eligible slum dweller. Further, according to the petitioner, respondent No.13 entered into an agreement with him for providing an alternative accommodation. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of a declaration that the petitioner is an eligible slum dweller and is entitled to the keys and possession of Flat No.702, 7th Floor, Ganesh Krupa S.R.A. CHS Limited, Poisar Road, Opposite Poisar, Kadivali (W), Mumbai-400 067, and also for calling documents from respondent Nos.8 to 13. 4. Considering the nature of the grievance and the prayers made in petition and also considering the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, it appears that it is the case of the respondents that after the allotment of permanent alternate accommodation (Room No.702) to the petitioner under the slum rehabilitation scheme in lieu of his old structure, the petitioner by an Agreement for Sale dated 9-3-2006 sold the said premises to Mr. Narhari Atmaram Gaonkar and Mrs. Supriya Pradeep Patil for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- and executed the necessary 3 documents, the copy of which is annexed to the affidavit in reply filed today. Further more, it is also contended that in view Section 3E of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C.& R.) Act, 1971 and the Amended D.C. Rule 33(10), Appendix-IV, there is a restriction on transfer of the tenement allotted under the slum rehabilitation scheme for 10 years from the date of allotment, and the transfer done by the petitioner in the present case is totally contrary to the provisions of law applicable to the slum rehabilitation scheme and for which necessary action is being initiated. In view of these pleadings, it appears that there are some disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by us in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of a civil suit. The petition is dismissed. J.N. PATEL, J. A.P. BHANGALE, J.