IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.2344 of 2007 1. Mahatma Ramsumer Rai and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. The President Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C.& R) Tribunal and others ..Respondents Mr.V.C. Kotwal, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Jeetendra Ramugade for petitioners. Mr.Jagdish Reddy for respondent no.2. Mr.Uday Bobade with Mr.Mukesh Subramaniam for respondent nos.4, 5 and 7. Ms.Aparna Sanglikar i/b Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar for respondent no.6. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 7th July 2008 th July 2008 th July 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Respondent no.6 Sankataprasad Sharma had filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the notification published in the Government Gazette dated 1st November,1979. The notification dated 25th September, 1979 declares the area specified therein as slum area. The property is situated at Kurla, Mumbai. The C.T.S. number and the area covered thereby is mentioned in the notification. 2. The appeal was allowed and declaration was set aside so far as it relates to the claim of Sankataprasad Sharma. 3. The petitioner and others who are residents of the slum area are aggrieved by the fact that this order of the Appellate Authority will prevent the slum dwellers from developing the property. All necessary formalities have been completed by them. The scheme is also sanctioned by the concerned authorities. The developer has been assigned the rights by majority slum dwellers who have formed the housing society. 4. In such circumstances, and when the petitioners became aware of the Appellate Order that the present writ petition is filed. 5. This petition was placed for admission after and necessary directions with regard to the issuance of notice etc. were issued, the parties appeared and stated before me that they have settled the dispute between them. The only contesting respondent Sankataprasad Sharma gives up his claim to the city survey number which was subject matter of his appeal and states that he has no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn and order dated 28th October, 1996 passed therein be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr.Sankataprasad Sharma is present in Court and has confirmed his signature below the consent terms which are drawn in the aforesaid manner. 7. All others who are contesting the proceedings have also signed either by themselves or through their authorised signatories. The parties confirm the arrangement and submit that the same is arrived at willingly and after being made aware of all implications and consequences. The consent terms are, therefore, taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Order in terms of the consent terms at X. Petition is disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)