1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL LODG.NO. 177 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2239 OF 2008 Shaikh Jumman and Ors. ..Appellants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents WITH APPEAL LODG.NO. 178 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2225 OF 2008 Devendra Yashwant Kamble and Ors. ..Appellants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Prakash Marathe Advocate for Appellants. Mr.Milind More AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Vijay Thorat, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Prachi Sugdare i/b A.R.Pande for Respondent No.4. .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2010 P.C.: 2 1. We have heard Mr.Marathe, the learned counsel for the appellants. Writ Petition No.2225 and 2239 of 2008 came to be disposed by the learned Single Judge on 9th February, 2009 by a common order and therefore, these two appeals arise from the said order. 2. In Writ Petition No.2225 of 2008 there were six petitioners and in Writ Petition No. 2239 of 2008 there were four petitioners. The main ground of challenge to the order of eviction passed by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and Competent Authority on 8th December, 2007 and confirmed by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division was that unless the subject slum was declared as a slum under the Slum Act, the orders could not have been passed and the very same ground has been re-agitated before us. These arguments are based on the judgment of the Single Bench in the case of Shri.Ramkali Sitaram Kushawaha (Kacchi) & Ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector (ENC) and Competent Authority and Ors., [2004 (3) Bom.C.R. 14]. 3. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge referred to the issues framed in the earlier order dated 13th October, 2008 and by relying upon two separate decisions rendered by the Division Benches of this Court in the case of Amba Chawl Wadi Rahiwasi Seva Sangh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. [2005(3) ALL 3 MR 889] and Om-Sai Darshan Co-Operative Housing Society and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [ 2007(1) Bom.C.R. 476], held that the issue raised by the petitioners to challenge the eviction notice was devoid of merits and the Deputy Collector had the due authority to issue the eviction orders. 4. Mr.Marathe also relied upon Circular No.42 issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 12th June, 2000. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Single Judge has considered both the decisions rendered by the Division Benches in the case of Amba Chawl Wadi Rahiwasi Seva Sangh (supra) and Om-Sai Co-operative Housing Society (supra) and paragraph 8 of the judgment in Amba Chawl Wadi Rahiwasi Seva Sangh ’s case, and paragraphs 17 to 20 in the case of Om-Sai Darshan Co- Operative Housing Society have been reproduced in the impugned order. Our attention has also been invited to another two orders passed by two separate Division Benches in Writ Petition (L) No.1112 of 2004 and Writ Petition (L) No.2068 of 2006 on 17th June, 2004 and 14th November, 2006 respectively. It is thus, clear that the impugned order has followed the law laid down consistently by the Division Benches of this Court and it is not necessary for passing the order of eviction that the suit plot/property is included under the Slum Act. On 4 the other hand, even if it is censused as a slum, the eviction orders could be issued and this reasoning finds support in the Circular issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 12th June, 2000. The said Circular states that the areas should be a censused slum or a notified slum. Hence, the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference in these writ appeals. 6. There are additional facets which also require consideration viz., out of the total 1054 families, 97% of the eligible families, have already consented for the re-development and in fact, one building has been completed wherein 400 families have been shifted. The plans were approved on 29th May, 2006, I.O.D. was issued on 4th October, 2006 and the Commencement Certificate was issued on 19th October, 2006. One more building is expected to come up so that the remaining eligible families are also rehabilitated. The total number of eligible families is 808. 7. In addition, it was also admitted before the learned Single Judge that all the six petitioners in the first petition had already vacated the rooms under their occupation and they were shifted to the transit accommodation. The additional affidavit filed today, states that the structures occupied by appellant nos.2, 3 and 4 were demolished because on their own, the said appellants had vacated their respective 5 premises and volunteered to go into the transit accommodation being room nos. 12, 19 and 4 respectively. In the last week of December, 2009, appellant nos.2, 3 and 4 vacated their respective rooms/hutments and handed over vacant possession to respondent no.4. 8. Hence, these appeals must fail at the threshold and they are hereby dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. ]