1 Wp862.97 Kambli IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.862 OF 1997 ... 1.Abdul Raoof Qureshi since deceased through his L.Rs. & another ...Petitioners v/s. Government of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Suresh Gole for the Petitioners. Mr.A.B.Ketkar, AGP for State. Mr.R.V.Govilkar for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & Anoop V. Mohta, JJ DATED: 2nd May, 2011 P.C.: 1. The Petitioners by this petition challenge notification issued under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slums Area (Improvement) Clearance and Redevelopment Act declaring a piece of land as slum. The Petitioners challenge that notification on an allegation that they are owners of the land and that the land has been acquired 2 Wp862.97 without complying with the requirements of proviso to sub- section 1 of Section 14 of that Act. In the petition the Petitioners have made a bare statement that “ The Petitioners are the owner of the plot of land bearing CTS No.279.” 2. On behalf of the State Government an affidavit of one Mr.Madhukar Nathuram Tarvi, Deputy Collector has been filed which is dated 17th July, 1997. Copy of this affidavit admittedly has been served on the Petitioner. In paragraph 2 of that affidavit it is stated , “I submit that the Petitioners are not owners of the plot of land bearing CTS No.279, Survey No.80, Hissa No.1 admeasuring 2 acres and 3 gunthas and CTS No.1131/1, 1131/1 to 17 of village Kanjur, Taluka_Kurla, Bombay Suburban District, Bombay. Thomas Francis D’mello is owner of the land in question as per the entires in the property card. Name of Haji Badruddin Mohammed Ali & Ors. are shown in the property card as structure owner. I crave leave to refer and rely upon the property card as and when produced. The owners of land have not challenged the acquisition proceedings and 3 Wp862.97 therefore the petition filed by the Petitioners who are merely structure owner is misconceived and untenable. “ 3. The Petitioners have neither called upon the Respondents to produce the property card nor have they filed any rejoinder denying the allegations that they are not the owner of the land and producing document in support of that. As record stands today, it is clear that the statement of the Petitioners that the Petitioners is the owner of the land cannot be accepted and therefore the Petitioners do not have locus to challenge the notification. Petition, therefore fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)