1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL NO. 886 OF 1999 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1446 OF 1996 Narielwadi Zopadpatti Welfare Society, a society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and under Societies Registration Act under No. Bom.30/86 and having its Registered Office at Narielwadi, Reay Road, Bombay 400 010. Appellants (original Petitioners) vs. 1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, a corporation constituted under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, 2. The Joint Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Nos.1 and 2 having their offices at Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Bombay-400 001. 3. The Ward Officer, E Ward, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, having his office at Byculla, Bombay. 4. The Deputy City Engineer, Slum Improvement having his office on 2nd Floor, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market Building, Palton Road, Bombay 400 001. 5. Shri Abdul Rahim Khan, acting as the Chief Promoter of Asiana Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed) having his office at Victoria Road, Reay Road, Bombay 400 010. Respondents (original respondents) Mr. S. Shetty with Mr.Saikumar Pathrudi for the appellants. Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the respondents 1 to 4. Mr.S.G.Surana for the respondent no.5. 2 CORAM : R. M. LODHA & J.P. DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED : 4th November 2004 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Lodha,J.): Heard. 2. There is interse dispute between the appellants and the respondent no.5 for redevelopment of the Zopadpatti area of Narielwadi at Reay Road in the city of Mumbai. The respondent no.5 has been granted permission to redevelop the said area under the relevant Development Rules as they were found to have consent of at least 70% hutment dwellers (censused as well as vacant land tenure holders). During the course of hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent no.5 agreed that the aspect as to which of the party has consent of at least 70% of the hutment dwellers (censused as well as vacant land tenure holders) may be referred for verification to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and whosoever is found to have consent of 70% or more of the eligible hutment dwellers must be given permission to redevelop the property. 3. In the light of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent no.5, we are satisfied that the appeal may be disposed 3 of by the following order: (i) The Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall scrutinise and verify which of the party viz. the appellants or the respondent no.5 has consent of 70% or more of the eligible hutment dwellers for development of the subject slum. The party who is found by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to have the consent of 70% or more of the eligible hutment dwellers (censused as well as vacant land tenure holders) shall be entitled to redevelop the subject slum in accordance with the Development Control Regulations and the relevant law. (ii) The Slum Rehabilitation Authority on scrutiny and verification shall pass the reasoned order after hearing the parties. (iii) The order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (R.M. (R.M. (R.M. LODHA,J.) LODHA,J.) LODHA,J.) (J.P. (J.P. (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) DEVADHAR,J.) DEVADHAR,J.)