1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. Writ Petition No.583 of 2008 Gustad Rashid Irani .. .. Petitioner v/s. P.L.Salve, Dy. Collector (Enc.Rem) And Competent Authority, Ghatkopar & ors. .. .. Respondents Mr.P.S.Mhaispurkar for petitioner. Mr.Milind More, AGP for respondents 1, 2 & 10. Mr.S.G.Surana for respondents 3 to 9. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 28th April 2008 P.C. : 1.This Writ Petition challenges the order of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R.) Tribunal, dated 28th September 2007 (impugned order) in Appeal No.15 of 2006. The impugned order considers the notification issued under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, with regard to 8 plots including that of the petitioner. The notification shows the CTS number, final plot of T.P.S.No.III of the area of the plots which are shown to be declared as slum. The petitioner has shown a plan/location map of his plot which falls within the 2 entire area consisting of other plots also which is declared as slum. 2.It is the petitioner's case that a show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner before his plot was declared as a slum. This was though the show cause notices were issued to the adjoining plots. Nevertheless, there was a public notice of 4.2.2005. The public notice, inter alia, shows the petitioner's plot, CTS number as well as his area against his name. That public notice has been replied by the petitioner on 25.2.2005 to the Deputy Collector (Encroachment- Removal) and the competent Authority, Ghatkopar. 3.This slum has been declared as such upon the application of one Co-operative Society being Ashta-Vinayak Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) which had submitted certain plans for development of that area. 4.The petitioner demanded documents with regard to the Society before the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and the competent Authority, Ghatkopar. The petitioner, by his letter dated 14.3.2005, specified four documents of which he demanded copies. These were the documents of the Society. The Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and the competent 3 Authority, Ghatkopar offered inspection to the petitioner of these documents on 22.3.2005. Nevertheless, the petitioner entered into correspondence with him with regard to certified copies of documents and offered to pay charges. It may be mentioned that right of the petitioner as a litigant is to inspection. Copies of the documents are being given to parties by way of convenience. The right of inspection alone is given under the law. That right having been demanded has been satisfied by offering inspection. That right has not been availed of by the petitioner. 5.The notification has been issued on 25.1.2006 by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and the competent Authority, Ghatkopar, the Authority from whom the petitioner demanded inspection/copies. The notification shows the areas of the plots declared as slum showing CTS areas, final plot number and the total area of the plot under the village Ghatkopar-Kirol, Suburban, Mumbai. The notification is issued by the same Authority before whom the petitioner carried out the correspondence with regard to the certified copies of the documents. 6.It is the petitioner's case that not the Authority whom the petitioner had corresponded with, but another Authority had 4 jurisdiction to try and dispose of the application for declaration of slum. 7.The petitioner has relied upon the notification showing the jurisdictions of various Authorities dated 25.10.2001, Exhibit-N to the petition. This notification shows the Additional Collector (Encroachment), Eastern Suburban for the Kurla Taluka of Mumbai Suburban District, the Deputy Collector (Encroachment), Ghatkopar, inter alia, Ghatkopar villages and the Deputy Collector (Encroachment), Kurla for, inter alia, village Kirol. The petitioner contends that his property is in village Kirol. The petitioner has corresponded with the competent Authority, Ghatkopar. 8.The petitioner' s property register card does not show any village including the village Kirol. The petitioner has relied upon the computerized property register cards of the neighbouring plot owners which show Ghatkopar-Kirol. The petitioner, therefore, contends that his property is in Ghatkopar-Kirol and, therefore, the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and the competent Authority, Ghatkopar does not have jurisdiction with regard to his property. 9.It is seen from the Notification dated 25th October 2001 that 5 the Deputy Collector of Ghatkopar has jurisdiction over, inter alia, Ghatkopar villages and the Deputy Collector, Kurla has jurisdiction over, inter alia, Kirol village. There is no village shown as Ghatkopar-Kirol. Mr.Mhaispurkar argued that, therefore, the Additional Collector (Encroachment) must have jurisdiction because that is with regard to Kurla Taluka. The petitioner has not shown that his property is in Kurla Taluka. The petitioner' s property is in Ghatkopar, though the notification is issued for village Ghatkopar-Kirol, Kurla Taluka of Mumbai Suburban District. For the villages of Ghatkopar and Kirol, there are two separate Authorities being the Deputy Collector of Ghatkopar and Kirol, respectively. The argument that the Additional Collector must hear the case with regard to declaration of slum of the petitioner' s land is misconceived since all the Authorities under the notification with regard to various villages from Colaba in South Mumbai to Manbudruk in North-East are Deputy Collectors. The Deputy Collector of the relevant village is, therefore, the Authority having jurisdiction. This aspect has been correctly considered in the impugned order dated 28th September 2007. 10.The petitioner has not argued on merits before the relevant 6 Authority as well as before this Court. That was precisely what the petitioner was to do after he was offered inspection of documents before the correct Authority that heard the application with regard to the declaration of slum in respect of the petitioner' s land. 11.Consequently, no case is made out in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Status quo order granted in the Writ Petition shall continue for three weeks. The petitioner shall give notice to the respondents if any application to be moved by him. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.]