F.E. DINSHAW CHARITIES AND 7 ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 6 ORS.

(iii) Letter dated 19 March 2017 of the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority calling upon the Petitioner No.1-Trust to submit its written say to the compensation fixed at Rs.43,91,640/- and to declare the Award, and (iv) Letter of Intent (amalgamated) dated 14 November 2017 issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) granting in-principle approval for redevelopment to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in favour of Respondent No.6-Royal Realtors on the subject property (alongwith adjoining lands of two other Societies).

2. The Petitioner No.1 is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Petitioner Nos.2 to 7 are stated to be the Trustees of the Petitioner No.1-Trust. The Petitioner No.8 (who is also arrayed as Petitioner No.2) has been appointed as Administrator of the Estate of Late Eduljee Framoze Dinshaw. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 is the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). Respondent No.3 is the Deputy Collector (Encroachment & Removal), SRA. Respondent No.4 is the Chief Executive Officer, SRA. Respondent No.5 is Chief Promoter of Jaibhavani Anandi Vaishetpada Sahakari Co-operative Housing Society. Respondent No.6 is the Developer appointed by Respondent No.5-Society. Respondent No.7 is stated to be Imla Malak on subject property.

2/23

3. The subject matter of the Petition is land bearing CTS Nos.712, 713, 718, 719, 719/1 to 14 at Malad (East), Taluka Borivli, Village Malad admeasuring 2076 sq.mts. (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property'). The Petitioners claim to be the joint owner of a larger property of which the said property forms a part.

4.1 On 31 March 1983, a Notification was issued declaring the said property as slum area under section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Slum Act"). On 31 July 2014, the Respondent No.5- Society and the Respondent No.6-Developer entered into a Development Agreement for redevelopment of the said property. On 11 September 2014, the Respondent No.5-Society made an Application to the Respondent No.2- SRA for acquisition and redevelopment of the said property. By the impugned notice dated 19 May 2015, the Respondent No.2-SRA interalia informed the Petitioner No.1-Trust that the Respondent No.5-Society has submitted a proposal for acquisition of the said property under section 14(1) of the Slum Act for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the said property and a Surveyor would come to the site at 11 a.m. on 22 May 2015 for inspection alongwith list of slum dwellers submitted by the

3/23

Respondent No.5-Society.

4.2 In response to the aforesaid letter dated 19 May 2015, the Petitioner No.1-Trust by its letter dated 21 May 2015 objected to the acquisition proposal on the ground that as owners, they would have first/ priority right to develop the said property and further informed that they had approached the slum dwellers to give their consent for submitting the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. On 27 May 2015, the Petitioner No.1-Trust by its letter to the Respondent No.5-Society expressed its intention to redevelop the said property as owner thereof and requested for the consent for redevelopment. On 9 June 2015, in response, the Respondent No.5- Society refused to give their consent.

4.3 On 16 June 2015, the Respondent No.2-SRA issued a show cause notice interalia to the Petitioner No.1-Trust calling upon them to submit documents to substantiate that they had first preferential right for implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under DCR 33(10) as per section 13 of the Slum Act. On 7 July 2015, the Respondent No.3- Deputy Collector, SRA, issued a notice interalia informing the Petitioner No.1-Trust that on 10 July 2015 he would hear the parties on why the proposal to acquire the said property for implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme submitted by the Respondent No.5-Society be not sent to the State Government. On 29 February 2016, the Respondent

4/23

No.2-SRA issued a Notification declaring the said property as slum rehabilitation area under section 3C(i) of the Slum Act, and notifying that the said area was open for submission of scheme for slum rehabilitation as per Regulation 33(10) of DCR 1991.

4.4 On 21 March 2016, a public notice was issued by Respondent No.2- SRA, interalia stating that the slum dwellers have formed the Respondent No.5-Society and have submitted a proposal for land acquisition under the provisions of section 14(1) of the Slum Act to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in respect of the said property and called upon the owners or any other persons interested to show cause why the said property not be acquired. The Respondent No.4-CEO, SRA submitted a Report dated 16 April 2016 to the State Government proposing to acquire the said property and to take a decision on the same. The Report records that pursuant to the Application submitted by the Respondent No.5-Society, a notice was issued on 7 July 2015 interalia to the owners and a public notice was published in Marathi newspaper "Prahar" and English newspaper "The Free Press Journal" on 21 March 2016 and 23 March 2016 respectively and a notice was also affixed on the conspicuous part of the said property as provided in section 36 of the Slum Act. The Report records that in pursuance of the objection dated 21 May 2015, a notice was issued on 7 July 2015 to the Petitioner No.1-Trust and hearing was taken on 10

5/23

July 2015, 21 July 2015, 24 July 2015, 28 July 2015 and 1 October 2015 and the objections were turned down. The Report further records that despite several opportunities, the Petitioner No.1-Trust failed to submit the slum rehabilitation scheme. On 19 July, 2016, the impugned Notification came to be issued under section 14(1) of the Slum Act for acquisition of the said property to implement the slum rehabilitation scheme on the said property.

4.5 On 9 March 2017, the impugned notice was issued interalia to the Petitioner No.1-Trust calling for written say on the compensation fixed at Rs.43,91,640/-. On 14 November 2017, the impugned Letter of Intent was issued by the Respondent No.4-CEO,SRA granting in-principle approval to the Respondent No.6-Developer to the scheme for redevelopment. It is pointed out on behalf of the Petitioners that the last date of hearing on the determination of objection on compensation calculated by the Respondent No.2-SRA was 1 February 2019 and the final determination is still pending. (See List of Dates submitted on behalf of Petitioners).

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The principal challenge in the Petition is to the Notification dated 19 July 2016 issued by the State Government for acquisition of the said

6/23

property under section 14(1) of the Slum Act. The main contention urged on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is that under section 13 of the Slum Act, the Petitioners have preferential right to develop their own property and therefore the impugned Notification dated 19 July 2016 is malafide, arbitrary and bad in law being violative of the Petitioners' rights under Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Heavy reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Indian Corks Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of Maharashtra; 2018 SCC Online Bom 1214. It is submitted that in the said case, the Notification under section 14(1) of the Slum Act was set aside interalia on the ground that the owners had a preferential right to develop their own property. Having given our due consideration to the rival contentions, we find that the Petitioners have not made out a case for granting any reliefs in the Petition, for the reasons we shall presently indicate.

7. The impugned Notification dated 19 July 2016 reads as follows:

"HOUSING DEPARTMENT Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya, Mumbai

400 032,

dated the 19th July 2016 Notice

MAHARASHTRA SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT, CLEARANCE

7/23

AND REDEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1971.

No.Bhusampa. 2015/C.R.54/Zopani-2.— Whereas, on representation from the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai, it appears to the Government of Maharashtra that in order to enable the said Authority to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in relation to the Slum Rehabilitation Area mentioned in the Schedule appended hereto (hereinafter referred to as "the said Schedule"), it is necessary that the land specified in the said Schedule (hereinafter referred to as "the said land"), should be acquired;

And whereas, as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Chapter V read with paragraph (A) of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of section 3D of Chapter I-A of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Mah.XXVIII of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai, has, by his Notice No.SRA /Dy.Coll. /L.A./ C.R.18/sunavni/2015/719, dated the 7th July 2015 served in prescribed manner and also by notice published in the daily Marathi newspaper "Prahar" and English newspaper "The Free Press Journal" dated the 23rd March 2016, and also

by affixing in the conspicuous part in the premises situated in the said land, as provided in section 36 of the said Act, called upon the persons mentioned in column (6) of the said Schedule, who are the owners of the said land or any other person interested therein to show cause, within Sevan days from the date of its publication in the newspapers, as to why the proposal to acquire the said land for implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for the concerned protected slum dwellers should not be sent to the State Government for approval;

And whereas, the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai, after considering the objections received in this behalf for the acquisition of the said lands and pleading on behalf of the proposed Co-operative Housing Society of the Slum dwellers, entries as to the rights in the land record, reservation in development plan and the legitimate request of the protected slum dwellers, by his representation dated the 16th April 2016 submitted the report for the acquisition of the said land;

8/23

And whereas, as required by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Chapter V read with Paragraph (A) of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of section 3D of Chapter I-A of the said Act, on representation from the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai, and after considering his report it appears to the State Government that in order to enable the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to carry out the development under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in the slum rehabilitation area mentioned in the said Schedule, the said land should be acquired; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 14 read with paragraph (A) of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of section 3D of the said Act, the Government of Maharashtra hereby declares, by this notice, that it has decided to acquire the said land.

Schedule

9/23

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra,

B. G. PAWAR,

Deputy Secretary to Government."

8. It would be apposite to reproduce sections 13 and 14 of the Slum Act. The said sections 13 and 14 as amended by section 3D of Chapter IA of the

10/23

Slum Act read as under:

"13 - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

(10) of Section 12, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority may, after any area is declared as the Slum Rehabilitation Area, if the landholders or occupants of such area do not come forward within a reasonable time, with a scheme for re-development of such land, by order, determine to redevelop such land by entrusting it to any agency for the purpose.

(2) Where on declaration of any area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, is satisfied that the land in the Slum Rehabilitation Area has been or is being developed by the owner in contravention of the plans duly approved, or any restrictions or conditions imposed under sub-section (10) of Section 12, or has not been developed within the time, if any, specified under such conditions, it may, by order, determine to develop the land by entrusting it to any agency recognized by it for the purpose:

Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be passed.

"14. (1) Where on any representation from the Chief Executive Officer it appears to the State Government that, in order to enable the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to carry out development under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in any Slum Rehabilitation Area, it is necessary that such area, or any land within adjoining or surrounded by any such area should be acquired, the State Government may acquire the land by publishing in the Official Gazette, a notice to the effect that the State Government has decided to acquire the land in

11/23

pursuance of this section:

Provided that, before publishing such notice, the State Government, or as the case may be, the Competent Authority may call upon by notice the owner of, or any other person who, in its or his opinion may be interested in, such land to show cause in writing why the land should not be acquired with reasons therefor, to the Competent Authority within the period specified in the notice; and the Competent Authority shall, with all reasonable despatch, forward any objections so submitted together with his report in respect thereof to the State Government and on considering the report and the objections, if any, the State Government may pass such order as it deems fit.

Provided further that, the State Government may delegate its powers under this sub-section to any officer not below the rank of Commissioner;

(1A) The acquisition of land for any purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a public purpose.

(2) When a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances."

9. In Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra, (Civil Appeal No. 11077 of 2017), the Supreme Court by judgment dated 29 August 2017, has held - 'the provisions of section 14 of the Slum Act are independent, under which area is acquired by the State, subject to the hearing of the objection pursuant to show cause notice, and a decision has to be taken thereafter'.

12/23

10. In Sara Harry D'Mello vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (5) BCR 167,

the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 14 of the Slum Act. The Division Bench has interalia observed thus:

"75. Acquisition of slum lands under the provisions of the Slum Act are not merely for the benefit of a large number of persons residing in sub-human conditions in slums but also to ensure that improvement of their living conditions will lead to improvement of the urban economy which is very much dependent upon the labour force being supplied by the occupants of hutments in the slums. As per the settled legal position, scope of judicial review in such cases is to find out whether the principles for valuation set out in the legislation are relevant to the principles for determination of value of the land and since we find that the principles are relevant, the scope of the judicial review stops here and we are not concerned with the final outcome or the actual amount of compensation arrived at by the Competent Authority."

11. In Pratapsinh Shoorji Vallabhdas & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., (2017) 6 Bom 811 : 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 11532, the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the scope of Section 14 has observed thus:

"2. Now a days, we find that the landholders/owners of huge tracts of land in Mumbai City and Suburban Districts, leave them open, un- guarded, unprotected and unsecured, allow them to be encroached and after they are encroached, structures are erected, which are nothing but huts and slums, they go on increasing, these and such other owners approach this court and complain that they are not re- sponsible for the plight of the occupants of these slums. They are not responsible for endangering and threatening public health and safety. Though they neglect their own properties, but when their value in the

13/23

market increases and they command a huge price, these so called owners resist acquisition of the land and assure the authorities and the court that they would improve the lot of these slum-dwellers and rehabilitate them…. The State acquires them so that those languish- ing in slums obtain a decent housing accommodation and thereafter not only their life can be improved but public health and public safety is equally protected. That is protected by obtaining for such slum dwellers the basic amenities, from which they were deprived for decades together. No inbuilt toilet, no clean drinking water, no light, no ventilation, no roads, no health care facilities till date, but all this can be provided with private participation and their rehabilitation is the real purpose of this acquisition. Such a measure and specially by the welfare State is sought to be defeated by raising technical objec- tions and challenges.

97. A bare perusal of section 14 would indicate as to how certain words were substituted therein by Maharashtra Act 11 of 2012. By Sub-Section (1) of section 14, the State Government, which has the power to acquire, on any representation from the competent authority, may consider acquisition of the property in order to enable the authority to execute any work of improvement or to redevelop any area or any structure in such area. It can, if necessary, acquire such area or any land within, adjoining or surrounded by such area and then it can publish a notice to that effect. That is a notice which is to be published in the official gazette indicating that the State Government has decided to acquire the area or land in pursuance of this section.

98. The proviso to Sub-Section (1) of section 14 states that before the notice is published, the State Government, as the case may be, the competent authority may call upon by notice the owners of or any other person, who, in its opinion, may be interested in such land to show cause in writing why the land should not be acquired with reasons therefor and the competent authority, upon considering the cause shown, namely any objections, together with his report in respect thereof, forward all this to the State Government. On considering the report and the objections, if any, the State Government may pass such order as it deems fit.

99. By Sub-Section (1A), it has been clarified that the acquisition of any of the land for any purpose mentioned in Sub- Section (1) shall be deemed to be a public purpose. By Sub- Section (2), the land

14/23

shall, on and from the date of which the notice is so published vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances."

12. As stated in the Preamble, the Slum Act is enacted to make better provision for the improvement and clearance of slum areas in the State and their redevelopment (and for the protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants). It is an admitted position that neither the Notification dated 31 March 1983 issued under section 4(1) of the Slum Act declaring the said property as slum area, nor the Notification dated 29 February 2016 issued under section 3C(1) of the Slum Act declaring the said property as slum rehabilitation area have been challenged by the Petitioners by resorting to the remedy of filing an Appeal under the provisions of the Slum Act. Except for addressing communications to the Respondent Authorities showing their willingness to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and objecting to the Application dated 11 September 2014 of the said Respondent No. 5-Society for acquisition to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, no proposal has been submitted by the Petitioners to implement Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the said property till date. In

Pratapsinh Shoorji Vallabhdas (supra), it has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that merely addressing communications without submission of scheme for redevelopment would not indicate sincere and genuine desire to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

15/23

13. On the basis of the claim of preferential right under section 13 of the Slum Act without any scheme for redevelopment being submitted by the owners of a property, the owners cannot be allowed to stall the redevelopment, after the property is validly acquired by the State Government under section 14 of the Slum Act. The objects of enacting the Slum Act would be frustrated, if the slum rehabilitation areas are not redeveloped. In the present case, except for claiming violation of the rights of the Petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution based upon preferential right of the Petitioner to develop the said property under section 13 of the Slum Act, no arguments have been advanced on how the impugned Notification dated 19 July 2016 for acquisition of the said property can otherwise be said to be arbitrary or violative of the Petitioners' rights under Articles 14 or 300A of the Constitution.

14. In absence of any proposal for implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme being submitted by the Petitioners, despite the Petitioners asserting in their letter dated 27 May 2015 that they had the first/ priority right to develop the said property, the question of consideration by Respondent No.2-SRA of any preferential right of the Petitioners for redevelopment of the said property did not arise. There was thus no impediment in consideration of and acceptance of the Application dated 11 September 2014 of the Respondent No.5-Society by the Respondent State/

16/23

Authorities for acquisition of the said property in order to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

15. The Petitioners were all along aware of the Application dated 11 September 2014 of the Respondent No.5-Society for acquisition of the said property to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The slum dwellers are living in unhygenic and unhealthy conditions since the year 1983. The slum dwellers cannot be made to wait perennially for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

16. As provided under section 13(1) of the Slum Act (as amended by section 3D of Chapter 1-A), the Petitioners were required to come forward with the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme within a reasonable time. Though not relevant for the purpose of the present Petition, it is required to be noted that section 13(1) of the Slum Act has been amended w.e.f. 26 April 2018 and the reasonable time appearing in the said section is now specified by adding the words 'which shall not be more than one hundred and twenty days'. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.6-Developer has pointed out that under amended Circular No.144 of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, at the time of filing of the proposal by the owners for a scheme for redevelopment, the condition of consent of 70% of slum dwellers stands relaxed.

17/23

17. We find that the CEO, SRA has complied with the principles of natural justice as required by 1^stproviso to section 14(1) of the Slum Act. Notices to show cause why the proposal of the Respondent No.5-Society to acquire the said property to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme were published in the Marathi newpaper 'Prahar' and English newspaper 'The Free Press Journal' on 23 March 2016. The Petitioner No.1-Trust was also admittedly served with the show cause Notice dated 7 July 2015 for acquisition of the said property. The Notice was affixed on conspious part of the said property as provided under section 36 of the Slum Act. After considering and turning down the objections of the Petitioner, the Report of the CEO, SRA was submitted to the State Government for acquisition of the said property. Upon considering the said Report, the same was accepted by the State Government and impugned Notification dated 19 July 2016 under section 14(1) of the Slum Act came to be issued by the State Government for acquisition of the said property to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Petitioners were thus accorded sufficient opportunities before issuing the impugned Notification dated 19 July 2016 under section 14(1) of the Slum Act and due process of law was followed. The said property by virtue of impugned Notification under section 14(1) of the Slum Act now stands vested absolutely in the State Government free from all

18/23

encumbrances from 19 July 2016. The acquisition of the said property is deemed for public purpose as laid down in section 14(1)(A) of the Slum Act. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or malafides or arbitariness in the issuance of the Notification under section 14(1) of the Slum Act for acquisition of the said property. No rights of Petitioners under Article 14 or Article 300A of the Constitution can be said to have been infringned.

18. Quite apart from the above, we find that much water has flown under the bridge. In view of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Slum Act, the said property now vests absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances from the date of the Notification i.e. 19 July 2016. As far back as on 27 May 2015, by their letter, the Petitioners had interalia stated that they were in the process of framing scheme for redevelopment of the said property. No such proposal for redevelopment has been submitted by the Petitoners. In their letter dated 21 May 2015, the Petitioners, had interalia stated that the Petitioners being the owners had a preferential right to develop the said property. The Petitioners were aware atleast since the year 2015 that the Respondent No.6-Developer had undertaken redevelopment of the said property. In the letter dated 30 December 2016, addressed by the Pettitioner No.1-Trust to the Deputy Collector, LAQ,

19/23

Western Suburban, the Petitioner No.1-Trust had stated that they had taken steps for challenging tthe impugned Notification dated 19 July 2016. The present Petition has, however, been filed only on 28 February 2019. The Petition, therefore, suffers from delay and laches.

19. As stated in the Affidavit-in-Reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.6- Developer, the Respondent No.6-Developer was granted development rights under the Development Agreement dated 31 July 2014 executed by the Respondent No.5-Society for redevelopment of the said property in accordance with the Regulation 33 (10) and Appendix IV of the DCR 1991. The Respondent No.2-SRA had issued amalgamated Letter of Intent on 14 November 2017 (with adjoining lands of two other Societies) in favour of Respondent No.6-Developer. The Intimation of Approval was issued on 12 January 2018 by the Respondent No.2-SRA in respect of the proposed rehab building and the Intimation of Approval for free sale building was issued on 23 July 2018. The Commencement Certificate to commence the construction of the proposed rehab building on was issued on 14 May 2018 and Commence Certificate for free sale building was issued on 13 November 2018. Out of the total 100 slum dwellers, the Respondent No.6- Developer is currently paying transit rent to more than 85 eligible slum dwellers who have vacated and handed over possession of their respective

20/23

structures to Respondent No.6-Developer. All the structures of the slum dwellers on the said property are demolished. The construction of the rehab building is in progress for rehabilitation of eligible slum dwellers who awaiting their better home. The Respondent No.6-Developer has spent a total amount of Rs.35,51,02,777/- in implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.6- Developer has produced photographs which show that the construction on the said property is in progress. He has pointed out the Chart (Exhibit-5 to the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No.6-Developer) showing the following expenses incurred by the Respondent No.6-Developer:

"Royal Pristo - Expenses till 28.06.2019 Summary of Expenses

20. The decision of the Division Bench in Indian Cork Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners would have no application in the facts of the present case where despite opportunities, no proposal for implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme is submitted by

21/23

the Petitioners and LOI has already been issued and has been acted upon by the Respondent No.6-Developer as indicated above. Even otherwise, it is now not possible to set the clock back!

21. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.5-Society has rightly placed reliance on the judgement dated 31 October 2018 of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.2632 of 2018 (Rajesh G. Jain v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). In the said case, the Division Bench, in more or less similar facts, dismissed the Writ Petiton. The said judgement dated 31 October 2018 of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing SLP Nos. 24317-24318/2019, which were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4 October 2019.

22. Once the Notification dated 19 July 2016 for acquisition of the said property is validly issued, the consequences of declaring the award determining the compensation has to follow. We are told that the final Award is yet to be declared, as recorded in paragraph 4.5 above. In the event the final award is declared, the Petitioners would have to resort to the remedy of filing an Appeal under section 17(6) of the Slum Act, if the Petitioners are aggrieved by quantum of compensation.

22/23

23. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the Petition. Even otherwise, this not a fit case to exercise the extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdicttion of this Court. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)

katkam

23/23