1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2164 of 2009 Preeti Charudatta Degde & ors. ... Petitioners versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. V.B.Rajure for the petitioners Dr.Sadhana Mahashabde for respondent no.2. Mr.S.K.Shinde for respondent nos.4(a), 4(b), 5 and 10. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 23rd June 2010 P.C. 1. The present Writ Petition arises out of a notification dated 2nd January 2009 issued by CEO and Slum Rehabilitation Development Authority, Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad granting permission to the owners to redevelop the property bearing final plot no.503 which had previously been declared as a slum. Appeal against the order bearing Appeal No.19 of 2008 was dismissed by Slum Areas Special Tribunal by an order dated 21st October 2008. That order is also impugned in this petition. 2 2. According to the petitioner, he is a co-owner of the property and he has not consented for the redevelopment of the property. Only one of the co-owners through M/s.Zagade Developers, submitted an application that the area may be declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area. The application was granted by the Slum Development Authority without consent of the other owners and hence, the petitioner is aggrieved. 3. The land was declared as a slum by a notification dated 30th June 2005. In view of the notification, redevelopment of the said land is not permissible without permission of the Slum Developer Authority. Only one of the co-owners made an application for declaring the area as Slum Rehabilitation Area. It is only after such declaration is made that th eland can actually be redeveloped. A declaration declaring the suit property to be a Slum Rehabilitation Area does not affect the right of the owners. In fact, it enables the owners to redevelop the property which they could not have done without such declaration. 4. The petitioner apprehends that the declaration would be construed as grant of permission of redevelopment to the respondent without consent of the petitioner as also approval of M/s.Zagde Developers as the sole developer on behalf of all the owners. I have gone through the notification. Notification does not state that permission has been granted to the owners to develop the property through M/s.Zagade Developers. It only recites that owners have made an application through M/s.Zagade Developers. In my view, this recital cannot be construed as a permission granted to all the owners to 3 develop the property through M/s.Zagade Developers and through him alone. It is open to the owners to enter into any agreement for the redevelopment and then to implement the scheme in accordance with the law. With this clarification, writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)