VBC 1 wp1799.11-14.7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1799 OF 2011 Sakharam Balkrishna Satape & Ors. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr.S.S.Lanke for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay Patil, G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.R.V.Govilkar with Ms.Lata C.Wadhwani for Respondent No.4. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. July 14, 2011. P.C. : The challenge in these proceedings is to an order of eviction passed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Clearance, Improvement and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The order of eviction was passed by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment and Removal) on 26 October 2010 and has been upheld in appeal by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner on 2 February 2011. VBC 2 wp1799.11-14.7 The grievance of the Petitioners is that though in Annexure-II relating to the list of certified occupants, their names have been shown as persons eligible to participate in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Savli Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. on CTS 184 (part) of Laxmi Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), as a matter of fact their lands do not fall within the area of that Society. Instead, according the Petitioners, their lands fall within the area of another Society called the Mawli Co-operative Housing Society. The Deputy Collector (Encroachment and Removal) merely recited the rival submissions between the contesting parties and proceeded to pass an order of eviction. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioners that there is nothing in the order of the Deputy Collector which would indicate an application of mind to the submissions which were urged on behalf of the Petitioners. The Appellate Authority merely confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector by observing that the names of the Petitioners were included in Annexure-II and the Scheme had been implemented by the Savli Society in 2001 and there was nothing on the record to show that Annexure-II has been cancelled. VBC 3 wp1799.11-14.7 In our view, the basic question which the authority ought to have determined was whether there was any merit in the contention of the Petitioners that their structures are situated on the land on which a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is being implemented by the Mawli Co-operative Housing Society. In this regard, the Petitioners have inter alia also relied upon a location plan and other documentary evidence, which we do not propose to enquire into, considering the parameters of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Deputy Collector having failed to do so, we are of the view that an order of remand is warranted. We set aside the order of the Deputy Collector (Encroachment and Removal) dated 29 October 2010 and of the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner dated 2 February 2011 and remand the proceedings back to the Deputy Collector for a decision afresh. The Deputy Collector shall, in the course of the proceeding, also consider whether there is any substance in the grievance of the Petitioners that Annexure-II in respect of the Savli Co-operative Housing Society has wrongly included the names of the Petitioners. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings will have a bearing on expeditious implementation of the Rehabilitation Scheme, we VBC 4 wp1799.11-14.7 direct the Deputy Collector to pass final order after hearing parties within four weeks from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced on the record by any of the Advocates appearing on behalf of the contesting parties. The Petition is allowed in these terms. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( Anoop V. Mohta, J.)