1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTON WRIT PETITION NO.2609 OF 2009 Ratanchand Dhanraj Semlani .. Petitioner V/s The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.C.Singh i/by Mr.D.R.Shah for the Petitioner. Mr.G.D.Utangale for Respondent No.1. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, with Mr.Milind More, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. Mr.M.A.Sayed for Respondent No.7. Mr.R.V.Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Pramod Kathane for Respondent No.6. Mr.R.V.Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Yogesh Sankpal for Respondent No.8. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 12th August, 2010. P.C. 1. By this petition petitioner challenges the order of the High Power Committee in Appeal No.109A of 2008. The first ground of challenge is that the property is not really a slum. According to the petitioner the notification was issued dated 16th September, 1976 u/s.4A of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 declaring the suit property as a slum area. That notification was challenged by the petitioner in Appeal No.243 of 1978 before the Maharashtra Slum Areas Tribunal, and the Tribunal by its order dated 6th April, 1979 set aside that declaration. According to the petitioner therefore as the area is not a slum, there is no question of carrying on 2 any rehabilitation scheme. The High Power Committee has however found that there is notification issued u/s.4 of the Act, dated 17th October, 1977 in relation to the same property declaring it as a slum area and therefore rehabilitation scheme can be validly carried on. We find that the declaration dated 16th September, 1976 has been made u/s.4A of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Perusal of Section 4A shows that no declaration is to be made under that provision. Order is made u/s.26 of the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973 and Section 4A declares that if an order is made u/s.26 of the above referred Act, it will amount to notification u/s.4. 2. We have not been shown any declaration or order made u/s.26 of the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973. Therefore, in our opinion, it was rightly argued on behalf of the Respondents that issuance of notification dated 16th September, 1976 u/s.4A was a mistake and that notification was non-est. Therefore the only valid notification in the field was the notification dated 17th October, 1977. Learned counsel for the petitioner on being pointed out this, submitted that though the declaration dated 16th September, 1976 mentions provision of Section 4A, it is really the notification issued u/s.4 and therefore merely because a wrong provision is mentioned, the notification does not 3 become non-est. Admittedly this ground is neither taken in the petition nor are there any averments made in the petition that the Deputy Chief Executive Officer who issued that declaration dated 16th September, 1976 had power on that date to issue the notification u/s.4 of that Act. In our opinion, in this situation, it cannot be said that there is substance in the challenge raised by the petitioner. 3. The second challenge is about constitutional validity of the provisions of Regulation 33 (10) of the Development Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai, 1991. When we asked learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to what provisions of the Constitution it violates, learned counsel submitted that it violates right to property because in the redevelopment tenant is being given lesser area. In our opinion, merely because under the scheme for redevelopment the tenant is getting a smaller redeveloped area, it cannot be said that it makes the provision of the Regulation 33(10) ultra-vires the Constitution. Learned Advocate General stated before us that the constitutional validity of the Act has already been upheld by this Court. This statement was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no substance in that contention also. 4. Respondents have pointed out that the scheme for rehabilitation of the 4 slum has made considerable progress and few buildings have already been constructed, and therefore, now interfering in the rehabilitation scheme will cause prejudice not only to the Respondents but also to the persons who are occupying the slum and who are really to be rehabilitated. In this view of the matter, it will not be in the interest of justice to interfere in the petition. Petition is rejected. 5. At this stage request is made for continuation of the interim order which is presently operating. We have found that the redevelopment scheme has made a considerable progress, and in our view, it will not be in the interest of justice to continue any interim order. Request for continuation of the interim order is therefore rejected. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)