-: 1 :- wp-1512/11 & group IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1512 OF 2011. Rameshkumar N. Sahu .... Petitioner. V/s The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and others .... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1514 OF 2011 Nirmala Lalji Yadav .... Petitioner. V/s The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and others .... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1519 OF 2011 Ramshiromani Lalchand Tiwari .... Petitioner. V/s The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and others .... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1525 OF 2011 Surendrakumar Budhiram Patel .... Petitioner. V/s The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and others .... Respondents. srp -: 2 :- wp-1512/11 & group WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1527 OF 2011 Maniram Ramphal Yadav .... Petitioner. V/s The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and others .... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1528 OF 2011 Basantu Sitaram Rajbhar .... Petitioner. V/s The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and others .... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1548 OF 2011 Phulchand Jaitul Nishad .... Petitioner. V/s The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and others .... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1551 OF 2011 Anjana Ganpat Shinde .... Petitioner. V/s The Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and others .... Respondents. Mr. Y.B. Menon i/b Ms. Manisha Gawde for the Petitioners. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar Sr. Counsel with Mr.Chirag Balsara, Mr. Altaf Diamondwala i/b Divya Shah Associates for Respondent No.6. Mr. J.G. Reddy for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.G. Surana for Respondent No.5. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 16, 2011. -: 3 :- wp-1512/11 & group P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. They submitted that the facts of all the above petitions are identical. In view of the statement, the above 8 petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of brevity and in order to avoid repetition, the facts in Writ Petition No. 1512/2011 are only mentioned below. The petitioner was held ineligible for the permanent alternate accommodation by the competent Authority, i.e., the Assistant Municipal Commissioner on 30th July 2007. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in the month of January 2010. The Competent Authority in view of the fact that the petitioner was ineligible for the permanent alternate accommodation, passed the eviction order on 12/11/2010. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (IC&R) Act, 1971 before the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division. The said appeal is disallowed by the order dated 9/2/2011. This order is impugned in the present petition. 3. The only grievance made out by the petitioner before the -: 4 :- wp-1512/11 & group Divisional Commissioner and also before this court is that the premises which the petitioner was occupying has been censused and photo-pass is also issued to him in the year 1976. The applicability of the Government Resolution dated 11/7/2001 is also in question. The sum and substance of the petitioner’s argument is that in above circumstances, unless his appeal against the non inclusion of his name in Annexure-II is decided by the SRA, he cannot be evicted from the censused premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the premises of the petitioner is situated in a building located on recreational ground and therefore it need not be demolished in order to enable respondent no.6 to develop the property. 4. Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.6 – Developer and Mr. Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.3 and 4, on the contrary, supported the impugned order. Mr. Dhakephalkar specifically submitted that in case the petitioner’s appeal before the Appellate Authority, namely, SRA, is allowed, Respondent no.6 – Developer is duty bound to give him permanent alternate accommodation as per the scheme. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned counsel further submitted that the development cannot be made unless all the slum-dwellers are evicted. Mr. Dhakephalkar submitted that out of total 2159 slum-dwellers, 1158 slum-dwellers -: 5 :- wp-1512/11 & group have already been shifted and as per their choice they have been provided either the alternate transit accommodation or rent in-lieu thereof. He further submitted no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by the said order, as respondent no. 6 is willing to provide alternate permanent accommodation in accordance with the impugned order. 5. Under the impugned order, the petitioner’s appeal is disallowed, however, he has been extended the benefit of transit accommodation or rent in-lieu thereof as extended to other eligible slum dwellers for initial period of 6 months. Mr. Reddy, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 also submitted that the petitioner’s appeal before the SRA regarding his eligibility will be decided/disposed of within the period of 8 weeks from today. 6. I find that the petitioner’s interest is sufficiently protected in view of the statements made by learned counsel for Respondent no.6 and learned counsel for Respondent nos. 3 & 4. I am not inclined to go into the question whether or not the development is possible without eviction of the petitioner. It is for the developer to develop the property in accordance with the scheme. He is the best judge of his development. In any case, in my view, the arrangement under the impugned order is made keeping in mind the interests of the petitioner. I do not think that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the said order. -: 6 :- wp-1512/11 & group 7. In the circumstances, writ petitions are disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (I) The statement made by Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 that respondent no.6-Developer will provide to the petitioners transit accommodation or rent in-lieu thereof for the period of 6 months is accepted. The further statement made by Mr. Dhakephalkar that in case the petitioners succeed in their appeals before SRA, they will be provided the permanent alternate accommodations on site as per the scheme is also accepted. (II) Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the petitioners’ appeals challenging the eligibility as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within the period of eight weeks from today. (III) At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, protection granted by this Court vide order dated 22/3/2011 is continued further for the period of two weeks from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)