Lpa 165.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION L.P.A. NO.165/2011 Shagir Ahmed Sajjad Hussain Shaikh & Ors. Appellant Vs. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. Respondents Mr.B.P.Colabawala and Mr P.S.Colabawala i/b Mulla and Mulla & CBC for Appellants Mr.J.Reis with Mr.M.M.Malvankar for respondents Coram-P.B.Majmudar, And Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date- 15th July,2011. P.C. . This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27/6/2011 by which the Writ Petition filed by the present appellants against the order passed by the City Civil Court has been dismissed. The appellants are claimed to be in occupation of the disputed property to which the Corporation is claiming ownership right. The officer of the Corporation came to the conclusion in Lpa 165.11 2 adjudication of the proceedings u/s 105(b) of the Corporation Act that the appellants had no right, title or interest over the disputed property. The said order was challenged before the City Civil Court. The City Civil Court recorded the finding that the appellants initially filed Writ Petition in the High Court being Writ Petition no.1558/2009. The said Writ Petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the appellants herein to approach the High Power Committee and also to apply for interim order before the said Committee. The City Civil Court found that once the proceeding is pending before the High Power Committee, no relief can be given to the appellants. The said order was challenged before the Single Judge and during the pendency of the said petition the appellants placed on record a copy of the notification issued by one Mr.Zende. The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority vide notification dated 20/4/2011 declared the area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area. The learned Single Judge expressed doubt as to Lpa 165.11 3 whether the notification could have been issued when the Corporation was claiming their independent right over the property in question. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that once the area is included as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Slum Act, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority is required to decide individual claim of the occupant on its own merits. 3 Mr.Reis, on the other hand submits that the Corporation thereafter made representation before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and pointed out that certain facts are not stated by the appellant before the High Power Committee and no hearing was given to the Corporation in this behalf. 4 We have heard the learned counsel at length. In our view, when the appellant has withdrawn the earlier petition with a view to approach the High Lpa 165.11 4 Power Committee and there is no specific order of the High Power Committee on the representation of the appellant which is submitted in the year 2009, we direct the High Power Committee to decide the matter afresh with a direction to adjudicate the grievance of the appellant made in the representation of 2009 after hearing the Corporation and thereafter the High Power Committee may consider as to whether the notification is required to be continued declaring the area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area or whether the same is required to be amended. Though the learned Single Judge expressed certain aspects about issuing such notification, we make it clear that we express no opinion on this aspect. The High Power Committee to consider the matter afresh and after hearing the appellants and the Corporation shall pass the order on the representation of the appellants made in the year 2009. The notification should not come into effect till the representation is decided and thereafter the further order is required to be passed. It is for the Lpa 165.11 5 High Power Committee to pass the order in accordance with law. The claim of the appellant may be considered on its own merit. The City Civil Court has also not granted relief to the appellants on the ground that the proceeding is pending before the High Power Committee. The High Power Committee after considering the record shall pass appropriate order in this behalf. 5 Mr.Reis has undertaken on behalf of the Corporation that the Officer of the Corporation will remain present with appropriate record before the High Power Committee. The High Power Committee is directed to dispose of the original appeal of the appellants in the light of the aforesaid order afresh and shall pass order within a period of three months from today, irrespective of notification dated 20/4/2011. It will be open for the High Power Committee to pass any consequential order thereafter Lpa 165.11 6 in this behalf. If the High Power Committee comes to the conclusion that such notification could not have been issued, it is open for the High Power Committee to pass an order in that behalf. It will be open to the Corporation to request the High Power Committee to vacate the interim protection in case the appeal of the appellant is not decided within the reasonable period, which is prescribed in this order. Till the High Power Committee takes final decision, the appellants shall not be evicted from their respective premises. However, in case, the High Power Committee fails to decide the matter within the stipulated period, it will be open to the Corporation to request the High Power Committee to vacate the stay and it is for the High Power Committee to consider this aspect in accordance with law. 6 It is clarified that we have not adjudicated the claim of rival party. The High Power Committee to decide the entire issue afresh as stated above, without Lpa 165.11 7 being influenced by the order passed by this Court or the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.B.Majmudar,J.) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)