Bharat J. Patel v. State of Maharashtra

9. In the meanwhile, on 10 February, 2011 this Court passed an order on the petition filed by the owners of the adjacent land that SRA before acquisition proceeding shall apply the Judgment in case of Amit Gulabdas Shah Vs.State of Maharashtra (supra). On 6 May, 2011 Respondent No.4 relying on the said Consent Decree applied to the Deputy Collector E&C and stated that as per the Decree, the Slum Dwellers were restrained from joining any other society or any other developer and therefore, the decree must be submitted alongwith proposal of acquisition to the Government. Petitioner received these documents by making an application under the Provisions of Right To Information Act. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said acquisition made by the said society was processed after Six years and after Respondent No.4 and 6 obtained collusive decree of the City Civil Court.

10. On 26 August, 2015 the writ property was declared as “Slum Rehabilitation Area” that is much after the Report submitted by the SRA on the basis of which land was acquired. On 16 November, 2013 the SRA issued a public notice under Section 14 of the Slums Act in respect of the writ lands and called upon the owners to show cause as to why the lands must not be acquired. By letter dated 23 November, 2013, Petitioner objected to the said acquisition proceedings and submitted that he would develop the said land himself and therefore the land should not be acquired. It is the case of the Petitioner that there was no reply by the SRA to the objection raised by the Petitioner. There was R.G.Reservation on the land that is part of the land was under “Special Industrial Zone” and part of the land was affected by DP Road and without removal of reservation, no scheme could have been filed.

11. On 3 February, 2014 first hearing took place before SRA which was attended by land owner. The said hearing was adjourned to 10 March,2014. On 26 February, 2014 Petitioner submitted written representation before SRA and objected to the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. On 1 March, 2014 Petitioner submitted another written representation before SRA and objected to the acquisition proceedings of the writ land. On 10 March,2014 second hearing took place before the SRA and was adjourned to 11 April, 2014 simplicitor. On 11 April 2014 third and last hearing took place and the Petitioner appeared and objected to the acquisition proceedings and submitted that they are ready and willing to develop the writ land.

12. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 2 December, 2014 it was learnt from the impugned notification that the Chief Executive Officer, SRA had submitted report to the State Government after 8 months of the hearing without making any reference to the objections regarding CTS No.29.

13. On 10 April, 2015 on queries from the State Government, SRA sent clarifications to the State Government. It is the case of Petitioner that the State Government as well as SRA relied upon the collusive City Civil Court Proceedings while considering whether the land should be acquired or not. It is the case of Petitioner that in the said letter of SRA it was admitted that no scrutiny of number of Slum Dwellers/eligible as slum dwellers was carried out. According to Petitioner it was falsely stated in the said report that land owners did not take any objection to the Acquisition proceedings.

14. Thereafter on 15 October, 2016, Petitioner filed another representation and pointed out that unless R.G.Reservation was removed or modified, no scheme could be submitted. On 17/11/2016, after 23 months, State Government issued notification under Section 14 of the Slums Act, thereby aquiring the writ property. It is the case of Petitioner that no hearing was granted to the Petitioner before passing the said impugned notification dated 17 November,2016 under Section 14 of the Slums Act. On 8 April, 2017 the Petitioner made a detailed representation to the SRA stating that he would Re-develop the land subject to the modification of the reservation.

15. On 29 April, 2017 the Petitioner received notice from SRA fixing a date of hearing for fixing compensation. On 16 June, 2017 hearing came to be held by the SRA and was adjourned to 27 June, 2017 due to pendency of Writ Petition (L)No.1121/2017. On 27 June,2017 hearing for the purpose of deciding the compensation was due. It is the case of Petitioner that on an apprehension being expressed, the Respondent No.5 being due to retire on 30 June,2017, this Court directed SRA not to conduct further proceedings pursuant to impugned notification by passing order of 23 June,2017.

16. On 20 June, 2017 Respondent No.5 preponed the date of hearing from 27 June,2017 to 20 June, 2017 and passed final order fixing the compensation on the preponed date. It is the case of the Petitioner that in these proceedings, it was alleged by the Respondents that one advocate of M/s.Scan Advocates has sent request on 14 June, 2017 for preponement. The matter was accordingly preponed on 19 June, 2017.

17. On 28 September, 2017 Respondent No.6 Developer filed a Misc.Application in Execution Application for execution of Agreements. It is the case of Petitioner that the said application was initiated after the status quo order dated 14 July, 2017 was passed in this petition. On 6 December, 2017 State Government addressed the letter to the SRA calling for disclosure and information as to whether land owners were heard in the matter. This letter was addressed after the entire process was claimed to be over. Mr.Shardul Singh learned counsel for the Petitioner tendered convenience compilation of documents on behalf of his clients and also relied upon various judgments in support of his submission. The Writ petition is opposed by Respondent No.2, 3, 4 and 6 by filing affidavits. Petitioner also filed additional affidavit on 17 November, 2022.

18. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner tendered synopsis, convenience compilation of documents and also compilation of judgments for consideration of this Court. He invited our attention to the various documents including copy of Development Agreement dated 7 August, 2006 and Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 2 October, 2006. He also invited our attention to copy of Plaint filed in the Short Cause Suit No. 1124 of 2007 filed by the Developer viz. Atlantic Construction Company against the society and few others, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the Defendants therein are not entitled to transfer, sell and assign the development right in respect of the writ property to any third party and that the Defendants therein cannot be dispossessed by the developer. He submitted that the Petitioner was not impleaded as party defendant to the said suit.

19. It is contended that in paragraph 8 of the said Plaint filed by the Developer, that on 22 January, 2007, the Defendants therein have threatened the Developer that they should implement Slum Redevelopment Scheme without any delay and start construction on suit property. The Developer, however, informed the Defendants and other slum dwellers that there is reservation on the suit property which is required to be deleted as also the Defendants had to take the N.O.C. from the owners of the suit plots and if they are unable to get the no objection to develop the suit plots under Slum Redevelopment Scheme, then the suit property were required to be acquired by the Government in favour of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

20. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the consent terms filed by the Developer and the Society in the said S.C. Suit No. 1124/2007 and submitted that under the said consent terms, curiously the Defendants therein i.e. members of the society agreed not to transfer, sell, assign the development of the suit property to any other person under slum redevelopment scheme or any other private scheme for redevelopment the slum and only the Developer, their assign, representatives shall develop the suit property. The Society and the other occupants also agreed not to join or participate in any housing scheme for their rehabilitation by any private developer, Government and Semi Government bodies.

21. It is submitted that the parties in the said consent terms also agreed that except Developer, no other persons shall develop the said property for the rehabilitation of the society and their members. He submitted that by obtaining such collusive decree by the Developer or by the Society, a fraud has been committed on the Court and also upon the Petitioner. Though in the plaint there was an averment made by the Developer that there is reservation on the said property which is required to be deleted as also the defendants have to take the NOC from the Developer and land owners, the Petitioner, who is a land owner, is not impleaded as a Party Defendant.

22. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the application filed by the Developer for execution of the said consent decree. By an order dated 19 December, 2012, the Court Commissioner came to be appointed for declaration that the Developer / decree holder is in possession of the writ property and only developer has a right to redevelop the said property and that the possession of decree holder cannot be disturbed by way of erecting a prominent board on the site of the property. The said order further provided that the members of the Defendant society to execute individual development agreement with the Developer. If they failed to do so, the Registrar of the City Civil Court to execute the same.

23. Learned counsel invited our attention to the public notice issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 16 November, 2011, and also the application dated 6 May, 2011 filed by the Society to the Deputy Collector ENC- Removal. The said application was made by the Society to the Deputy Collector, requesting the Deputy Collector to send the proposal to the Government for acquisition of the writ property and to submit report regarding the consent decree obtained by the parties.

24. The Deputy Collector also requested to bring the said decree on the record of acquisition of the writ property. It was mentioned in the said application that City Civil Court has restrained 489 and remaining other slum dwellers from joining any other society and developer for implementation of SRA Scheme. As per the decree, the possession of the writ property was with the Society and the developer. He submitted that the said application itself was a fraudulent act on the part of the Society and the developer. The entire process of making such application for submitting a report for the purpose of acquisition of the writ property was based on the collusive consent decree fraudulently obtained by the developer, society and its members.

25. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the report dated 2 December, 2014 submitted by the SRA CEO to the State Government vide letter dated 10 April, 2015 referring to the filing of the suit by the Developer against the society and the consent decree passed therein. He invited our attention to the order dated 23 June, 2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1121 of 2017 filed by Yogesh Chandulal Mehta and Anr. directing the SRA Authority not to proceed with the inquiry pursuant to the Notification dated 17 November, 2016 which was listed on 27 June, 2017 till next date of hearing.

26. It is submitted that the Authority, however, fraudulently preponed the date of hearing with a view to pass an ex-parte order against the Petitioner. He submitted that on 20 June, 2017, the Deputy Collector passed an exparte Award. No notice was given to the Petitioner for preponement of the hearing. The hearing was already adjourned to another date. After knowledge of the order passed by this Court, the Deputy Collector fraudulently antidated the date of hearing. Learned counsel for the SRA was present before this Court on 24 June, 2017, however, did not point out that the hearing was already preponded by the Deputy Collector as on the date of the said order dated 24 June, 2017.

27. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the Affidavit in Reply filed by the SRA and contended that the SRA raised a frivolous objection that the writ petition has become infructuous. The report of SRA is based on false premise that no objection was raised by the Petitioner. He submitted that the Petitioner being the owner of the writ property has first right to carry out the development on the writ property. Since the Petitioner has not refused to develop and made an offer to develop the writ property, the Deputy Collector could not have passed an order of acquisition of the writ property. The act on the part of the Deputy Collector and the SRA is not bonafide and acts of collusive, malafides and fraudulent.

28. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the following judgments in support of his rival contention.

(i) Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of S.P.

Chengalvaraya Naidu by Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. [(1994) 1 SCC1];

(ii) Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Reserve Bank Employees’ Snehdhara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2015 (2) Mh L.J. 899].

29. Learned counsel for the Petitioner adopted the submissions made by Mr. Damle, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2238 of 2017 on the other issues. Submission made by Mr. Balsara, learned counsel for Respondent No.4- Society.

30. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the provisions of Slums Act substantially provided for improvement of conditions of the slum dwellers. The said Act, however, did not have any provisions for rehabilitating the slum dwellers. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mrs. Kamal Sukumar Durgule and Ors. [(1985) 1 SCC 234] (page 414-431 of Compilation), holding that Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorized Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, 1975 violated Article 14 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India and confirmed the order dated 8 February, 1980 passed by this Court.

31. Learned counsel relied upon salient features of Afzalpurkar Committee Report, suggesting formation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. He submitted that vide Notification dated 1 April, 1998, a Slum Scheme was issued under 3(b) (iii) for Greater Mumbai Area. The guidelines framed by the SRA mandatory required a proposal to contain 5 NOC’s before the same was accepted from the various departments. He relied upon the circular dated 9 November, 2015 issued by SRA whereby the requirement of 70% consent at the time of submission of the proposal was waived in the event of the proposal being submitted by the owner of the property. He submitted that the Petitioner, therefore, did not require the consent of the slum dwellers for submitting a proposal in the year 2015. If he had any any desire or seriousness in submitting a proposal at that time, the same could not have been done without the consent of the slum dwellers.

32. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sushme Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, S.R.A. and Ors. [(2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 230], observing criteria of conversion of SRD Scheme to Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. He submitted that the declaration under Section 3C (1) of the Slum Act was not a mandatory requirement for implementation of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The said declaration does not enure in favour of any particular developer but would have enabled anyone including the Petitioner to submit a Slum Redevelopment Scheme.

33. It is submitted that Mr. Bharat Patel in Writ Petition No. 2283 of 2017 has even transferred and sold a neighbouring plot to Nootan Builders who submitted the Slum Rehabilitation in respect of the neighbouring plot. At that time the Petitioner had no intention to carry out redevelopment. It is submitted that five NOCs have already been issued in favour of the developer by various departments on various dates. The scheme submitted, is accepted on 24 June, 2020. It is submitted that only at this stage of preparation of the Annexure -II, that the Petitioner misrepresented to the SRA that the aforesaid Slum Rehabilitation Scheme propounded by Respondent No.4 and 6 would not be processed in view of the Interim Order dated 23 June, 2017 in this writ petition.

34. It is submitted that any reliefs to the Petitioners in the present Petition would be detrimental to the interest of 662 slum dwellers and consequently public at large. He submitted that the allegations against Mr. Vishwas Patil made orally across the bar have no bearing on the Notification dated 17 November, 2016 under Section 14 of the Slum Ac, as the report for the same was made by Mr. Nirmal Deshmukh, the predecessor of Mr. Vishwas Patil.

35. The allegation of preponement of the hearing for compensation also do not have any substance as there cannot be any substantial difference in the compensation awarded in accordance with Section 17 of the Slum Act i.e. 60 months Notional rent.

36. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there was a gross failure on the part of the Petitioners in submitting Slum Scheme and the subject property was already declared as Slum by Notification under Section 4 on 15 October, 1977. At that point of time, there was no reservation on the subject property. Though the Petitioner could have implemented SRD Scheme from the year 1997, the Petitioner did not do so. From the year 1997 after the amendment to Development Control Regulation for Greater Bombay, the Petitioners failed to put any proposal in implementing the Slum Scheme. The subject larger property admeasuring 12511 sq. mtrs. has been declared as Slum under Section 3 (c) (1) of Slum Act on 26 August, 2015. Even thereafter the Petitioner failed to put up the proposal for implementation of the Slum Scheme.

37. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 Society submitted that Respondent No.2- Chief Executive Officer had submitted a report dated 2 December, 2014 to the Chief Secretary Housing Department for recommendation of acquisition of the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act. The Chief Executive Officer took into consideration the objections of the Petitioner and other members who are present. The Petitioner had primarily contended that though the Petitioner had intended to implement a Slum Scheme on the subject property, however, on account of reservation for recreation ground on the subject property, the Petitioner could not implement the Slum Scheme.

38. It is submitted that under the garb of reservation for recreational ground, the Petitioner has failed and unable to implement the slum scheme. The subject property was notified under Section 4 as Slum on 15 October, 1977. Till the enactment of the Development Control Regulation Act, 1991 there was no reservation over the subject property and thus there was no restriction upon the Petitioner to submit the proposal at that point of time. There was no total constraint in implementing the slum scheme by order dated 31 July, 2002 passed by this Court in case of City Space in Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002. He submitted that Slum Scheme could have been implemented by restricting structural activity to 67% as reflected in the report dated 21 June, 2019 prepared by the SRA in respect of Recreation Ground Reservation as per DCR 2034. The said reservation was not an implement for submission of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

39. It is submitted by the Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that the public notice dated 16 November, 2013 under Section 14(1) of the Slum Act was already issued. The Petitioner raised objection to the acquisition. The second notice was issued on 24 December, 2013. The notice was pasted on the subject property on 22 January, 2014. The hearings were held before Respondent No.2 CEO,SRA on 3 February, 2014, 10 March, 2014 and 11 April, 2014 in respect of acquisition of subject property. The Petitioner and the Chief Promoter of Respondent No.4 appeared before Respondent No.2 and were heard at length. The Petitioner, thus cannot be allowed to contend that no notice was issued upon the Petitioner or that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that there is no falsity to issue notice or to grant hearing before the State Government.

40. Insofar as the issue of allegation of collusion raised by the Petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Society that Respondent No.4 Society in its reply especially at pages 59 and 60 has specifically stated about pendency of the suit as well as the consent terms filed therein. The Respondent No.6 Developer also has stated about the said suit and the orders passed therein in the Affidavit in Reply filed by them.

41. It is submitted that, on the contrary, the Petitioner is guilty of misleading this Court by making false statement. He submitted that the Petitioner was well aware about the said suit and the order passed therein, since the Petitioner, Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.6 had appeared before the Respondent No.2 CEO on multiple occasions for hearing in respect of acquisition under Section 14 of the Slum Act in respect of the subject property in the year 2014.

42. It is submitted that the report dated 2 December, 2014 also discloses the details of the said suit and the consent decree passed by the City Civil Court. He submitted that even if the case of the Petitioner is accepted that he came to know about the suit and the consent decree in the Affidavit in Reply of Respondent No.4 in this petition, the Petitioner was not precluded from submitting the slum proposal in respect of the subject property even at that stage.

43. It is submitted that the Petitioner did not challenge the consent decree by making any application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure till date. Respondent Society has already filed the compilation of documents before this Court on 11 January, 2023 annexing all the documents in respect of the suit and the consent decree. It is submitted that merely because the suit was filed and the consent decree was passed therein, it would not change the fact that the Petitioner being the land owner has failed to submit the proposal from the year 1977 when the subject property was declared as slum under Section 4 and the fact that the slum dwellers were residing in unhygienic condition and without basic amenities.

44. It is submitted by the learned counsel that during the period between June, 2016 and June, 2020, various NOCs are already granted by various departments for carrying out redevelopment. He placed reliance on the Additional Affidavit in Reply filed on behalf of the SRA on 1 December, 2022, stating that the Notification dated 17 November, 2016 is rightly issued by the Slum Authority and after following the due process of law and that the compensation under Section 17 of the Slum Act has already been declared for land admeasuring 12511.[6] sq. mtrs. on 2 July, 2017. Arguments in rejoinder made by Mr. Singh on behalf of the Petitioner

45. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the learned counsel for the Developer Society or the SRA Authority did not advance any argument whatsoever in any manner in which the order fixing compensation was passed, despite order dated 23 June, 2017 passed by the this Court. The SRA has not disputed the fact that the order fixing the compensation though dated 20 June, 2017, is antedated since intimation of this order passed by this Court was never given either on 23 June, 2017 or at any time thereafter.

46. The events subsequent to the impugned notification as pleaded by the Petitioner and lastly admitted by the SRA, State, Developer Society assumed act of malafides and malice which are un-controverted. He submitted that those NOCs were obtained by the Society from the Deputy Collector and the other authorities on the strengthen of the order dated 20 June, 2017.

47. It is submitted that there is no denial from the society as well as developer that the City Civil Court proceedings or orders passed therein were not collusive. He submitted that it is also not the case of the Respondents that the collusive orders in executing proceedings were not taken into consideration for acquisition of the property or that the said consent decree dated 21 January, 2009 was of no consequence. On the contrary, the Respondents have argued that the Petitioner ought to have filed the suit, challenging the collusive consent decree dated 21 January, 2009 or file an appeal along with application for leave to appeal.

48. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the Roznama of the proceedings before the City Civil Court in the suit filed by the Developer and submitted that no writ of summons was served by the Plaintiff- Developer on the Defendant -Petitioner and had served upon the Defendant Society and some of the occupants. No notice of motion was moved for interim relief. The Defendants in the said Suit suomoto appeared and none of the Defendants filed any written statement.

49. It is submitted that admittedly the Developer did not implead the Petitioner to the said suit and did not advance any argument as to why the Petitioner has not been impleaded as party Defendant. It was also not the case of the developer in the suit that the Petitioner is absentee landlord or he is unknown to the society. He submitted that admittedly the order and the consent decree obtained by the developer or the society is collusive, behind the back of the Petitioner, by abusing the process of the City Civil Court.

50. Insofar as the submissions of Mr. Balsara, learned counsel for the society that the scheme is already sanctioned in favour of the Respondent Developer, is concerned, it is submitted that this is an argument in terrorem of a contemptuous litigant. He relied upon the order dated 14 July, 2017 passed by this Court in this petition, directing the parties to maintain status quo to avoid further complications. He submitted that the said order passed by this Court is in force even till today and is willfully disobeyed.

51. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion No. 65 of 2019 filed by the Developer on 4 February, 2019 praying for vacating the status quo order dated 14 July, 2017. He submitted that in paragraph 21 of the said Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion filed by the Developer, this Court did not vacate the said status quo order dated 14 July,

2017. It is submitted that though there was an order of status quo passed by this Court on 14 July, 2017, the Developer Society obtained No Objection certificate from various authorities in gross violation of the order dated 14 July, 2017.

52. Insofar as submission of Mr. Balsara that Petitioner did not submit a Slum Scheme despite opportunities were given, is concerned, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Developer and the Society had obtained collusive consent decree dated 21 January, 2009 and further obtained collusive order, ignoring the existence of the Petitioner and the possession of the Petitioner on the writ property. The Respondent did not respond to any of the correspondence of the Petitioner.

53. The Petitioner could not have submitted the scheme without modification of the reservation for which the permission of SRA was sought by the Petitioner on 21 November, 2014, 26 February, 2014, 1 March, 2014, and 15 October, 2016. There was no response to these correspondence also. In collusive consent decree, it was already agreed by and between the Developer and the Society that the Society could not appoint any other person except Respondent No.4 Developer.

54. The Petitioner was even otherwise neutralized from submitting a slum scheme. The land in question declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area only on 26 August, 2018 and only after this date, the Petitioner could submit a scheme under Regulation 33 (10) of the Development Control Regulations Act. But by this date, the Report of the SRA for acquisition had already been submitted to the State Government on 2 December, 2014.

55. It is submitted that it is contended by the Developer itself that without modification of the reservation, the scheme even otherwise, could not have been submitted. The Scheme had been filed in August, 2019, only after considering the Town Planning Report dated 21 June, 2019. It is submitted that assuming that the Petitioner would have filed the scheme even after 26 August, 2018, there is no gain saying in what would happened to such scheme in view of collusive consent terms dated 21 January, 2009.

56. It is submitted that the Developer has suppressed the fact that the Developer had already submitted the slum Scheme on 14 March, 2016 though as on 14 March, 2016 the land was private land and notification for acquisition was issued only on 17 November, 2016. The Respondent Developer thus had no locus to submit a Slum Scheme on 14 March,

2016. On 14 March, 2016, even the Housing Minister had not approved the acquisition proposal.

57. It is submitted that it is only on the personal strength, that order of City Civil Court was obtained by the Developer and the Society and a fraud was played in obtaining the order. The Developer filed the slum scheme on 14 March, 2016 in anticipation of acquisition. It is submitted that it is the contention of the Developer that the slum scheme filed by the developer on 14 March, 2016, which was accepted on 22 June, 2016, is absolutely false as the scheme acceptance note/letter records that a fresh scheme was submitted in August, 2019 jointly by M/s. Halleys Dreamwork Private Ltd. and the Respondent Developer. He submitted that a bare perusal of the Slum Scheme acceptance letter which shows that acquisition has been abondoned and in place thereof a new proposal was submitted by one M/s. Halleys Dreamwork Private Ltd. along with Respondent developer in August, 2019.

58. It is submitted that the SRA has accepted the new Scheme of 2019 jointly submitted by M/s. Halleys Dreamwork Private Ltd. along with Respondent/Developer on 22 June, 2020 with a caveat that “upon subject to undertaking …. outcome of the Writ Petition Nos. 1152/2002 and 2283/2017 and 2238 of 2017 pending before this Court would be binding.” It is submitted that the sanction of the scheme on 22 June, 2020 is in gross violation of the status quo order passed by this Court. The Respondent Developer has no financial capacity and had to introduce a new developer. The scheme which was the basis on which the acquisition was made, has been abondoned and a new developer had entered into scene.

59. It is submitted that the City Survey NOC shows that “Agreement of Joint Venture was executed between M/s. Halleys Dreamwork Private Ltd. and Respondent Developer. Even before notification under Section 14 dated 17 November, 2016, the Agreement of Joint Venture was already entered into between the Respondent Developer and M/s. Halleys Dreamwork Private Ltd. The Respondents have suppressed these crucial facts and the documents from this Court even during the arguments advanced by the Respondent Developer, Society and SRA. The name of the new developer with whom the Respondent Developer has entered into with joint venture has been suppressed from this Court.

60. Insofar as the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Society that Section 14 of the Slum Act is an independent provision is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no dispute on the said legal provisions. He, however, submitted that the said provision does not help the Developer in the context of the challenge as pleaded, and shown in this Writ Petition.

61. It is submitted that the acquisition of land whether under Section 14 or otherwise is complete only upon the fixing and deposit of compensation. It is submitted that the acquisition of land thus, cannot be said to be considered as completed. The transaction is based on the collusive consent decree and order obtained in collusive manner from the City Civil Court by the Developer and the Society amounts to egregious act of fraud and malice. The entire action taken by the parties including SRA after passing the order of SRA is contemptuous and thus appropriate action be taken against the Respondents for such wilful disobedience against the order passed by this Court against the Respondents. Submissions of the Learned Additional Government Pleader for State

62. Mr. Patki, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State in both the matters tenders a Compilation of documents and also Synopsis for consideration of this Court. He supported the impugned order passed by the CEO of SRA and submitted that no interference is warranted with the impugned order passed by the CEO of SRA. Submission on behalf of Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3- SRA – Developer Authority

63. Learned counsel for the Developer adopted the submissions made by Learned Counsel Mr. Balsara, learned counsel for the Society and tendered the proposal approved by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 22nd June, 2020. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case Marathwada Society Chawl Committee and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2017 SCC Online B om 8547), more particularly paragraph Nos. 11,18, 20 and submitted that any interference with the Scheme would cause serious prejudice not only to the members of the Respondent No.4 Society, but also to the developer.

REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

64. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is to whether the SRA has issued the Notification dated 17 November, 2013, public notice dated 25 April, 2017 and has passed order dated 20 June, 2017 in accordance with the provisions of the Slum Act and without complying with the principles of natural justice or not?

65. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is the owner of Plot bearing CTS No. 29 (admeasuring 7154.[3] square meters and CTS No. 32 (Part) (admeasuring 515 square meters) at Village Dindoshi, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai. The Petitioner had responded to the show cause notice dated 16 November, 2013 issued by the SRA vide letter, informing that the Petitioner is the owner of the writ property and intends to develop the said property under the Slum Act. The Petitioner also requested the Respondent No.2 not to acquire the said property. Similar request was made by the Petitioner vide letter dated 16 April, 2017 and 8 April, 2017.

66. It is the Petitioner’s case that the Petitioner came to know for the first time after reading the public notice on 29 April, 2017 that by a Notification dated 17 November, 2016, the writ property had been acquired and vested in the Government of Maharashtra and fixing a compensation of Rs.1,40,83,344/- in respect of the writ property. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 had relied upon a copy of the Development agreement dated 7 August, 2006 between them conferring development rights in favour of the Respondent No.6 developer in respect of the writ property. The Petitioner was not party to the said development agreement. The consent of the Petitioner was not taken for the execution of such development rights by the Respondent No.4 Society in favour of Respondent No.6.

67. It appears that the Respondent No.4 Society also executed a power of attorney in favour of the Respondent No.6 Developer in furtherance of the said development agreement. There is no reference to the bonafide rights of the Petitioner in the property which was the subject matter of the said development Agreement and the power of attorney. It appears that the Respondent No.6 filed a suit bearing S.C. Suit No. 1141 of 2007 before the City Civil Court at Bombay against Respondent No.4 Society and some of the members of the said society.

68. In the said suit, Respondent No.4 Society prayed for Leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code,1908. In the said suit Respondent No.4 also prayed for a declaration that the Respondent No.4 Society and their members were not entitled to transfer, sell and assign the development right in respect of the suit property bearing City Survey Nos. 28,29 (1,2,3), 30, 31 and 32 Village Dindosh, Taluka Borivali to any third person and cannot dispossess Respondent No.6 Developer from the writ property. The Respondent No.6 also prayed for a permanent injunction against Respondent No.4 from selling, transferring and assigning the development rights in respect of the writ property in favour of third party and to dispossess Respondent No.6, his agent, assignee in respect of the writ property. The said suit was filed on 6 February, 2007.

69. The documents produced by the Petitioner indicates that during the pendency of the said suit, the Respondent No.6 made an application to the Additional Collector and the Competent Authority on 4 March, 2007 submitting property card and for permission. No writ of summon was served on the Defendants in the said suit. There was no written statement filed in the said suit by the Respondent No.4 society. The Respondent No.4 Society passed a resolution on 9 July, 2008 to the effect that the members of the society and the occupiers shall submit consent terms in the said S.C. Suit No. 1147 of 2007 before the City Civil Court, Bombay and authorizing Shri Janardan Devji Dhadve, Secretary of the Respondent No.4 Society to sign and submit the consent terms in the said proceeding.

70. It was resolved that the consent terms shall be accepted by all the members of the society, to sign the resolution and shall be individually bound by the consent terms. The said resolution was alleged to have been signed by the Committee Members of the Respondent No.4 Society. A perusal of the Consent terms on the record, indicates that Respondent No.4 and 6 filed consent terms in Court on 25 August, 2008 and 20 September, 2008 in the said suit filed by the Respondent No.6. It is curious to note that it was mentioned in the consent terms that the said developer had disputes with the Respondent No. 4 Society and its members since prior to 1 January, 1995.

71. Respondent No.4 and its members agreed not to transfer, sale, assign the development of the writ property to any other person under Slum Redevelopment Scheme or any other private scheme for redevelopment of the slum and only Respondent No.6 developer, their assignee and representatives shall develop the writ property. It was further agreed that the Respondent No.4 Society and its members shall not dispossess the Respondent No.6, his agents, servants, assignees, person or personal claiming through them for the writ property.

72. It was agreed that the Respondent No.4 Society shall not join and participate any housing scheme for their rehabilitation by any private developer, Government and Semi Government bodies. In case of any change in the Government Policies regarding slum and the writ property and cancellation of slum development scheme, then the Respondent No.6 shall develop, the said property privately by getting approval from the Municipal Corporation. The society also declared that the development agreement entered with the developer was permanently binding on them. The developer shall record its name in the property card or other government land records as holder/kabjedar of the writ property.

73. In paragraph 11 of the consent terms it was agreed that the slum dweller and Respondent No.4 Society bearing No. 494 had given their consent for submitting the consent terms in the Court. The Respondent No.4 society also agreed that except Respondent No.6 developer, no other developer can develop the writ property and Respondent No.4 shall not involve in any agreement with any person for redevelopment of the said property in other housing scheme or shall not appoint any other person for construction of the building on the writ property.

74. The City Civil Court passed a decree in terms of the consent terms on 21 January, 2009. It appears that Respondent No.4 Society filed an application for execution in the said consent terms bearing Execution Application No. 47 of 2011 under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the City Civil Court. Respondent No.6 applied for appointment of the Court Commissioner for declaration that Respondent No.6 is in possession of the writ property and also prayed for a notice under Order 21 Rule 11 of the CPC directing Respondent No.4 Society to execute individual development Agreement with the Respondent No.6 and prayed for further direction under Order 21 Rule 35/36 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the Respondent No.4 Society to vacate the premises / suit on the writ property.

75. On 19 December, 2012, the City Civil Court, Bombay passed an order in the said Execution Application. The City Civil Court recorded that on issuance of notice to the Respondent No.4 Society under Order XXI Rule 11(2) they remained absent and tendered their admission for execution on 10 July, 2010. The City Civil Court accordingly appointed the Court Commissioner for declaration that Respondent No.6 is in possession of a writ property and only the Respondent No.6 has a right to redevelop the writ property and that the possession of the decree holder cannot be disturbed by way of erecting a prominent board on the site of the writ property.

76. City Civil Court also issued notices under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directing the members of the Respondent No.4 Society to execute individual development agreement with the Respondent No.6 and if they failed to do so, Registrar of the City Civil Court shall execute the same. The City Civil Court also issued a notice under Order XXI Rule 35/36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directing members of Respondent No.4 Society to vacate the writ property, admeasuring approximately 25065.[9] sq. mtrs. for the purpose of redevelopment and have further directed that if they failed to do so, the Court Commissioner, City Civil Court, to get the property vacated by use of force with the help of police authorities or any other measures to vacate the writ property. A perusal of the record makes it clear that it is an undisputed fact that neither there was a reference of the ownership of the Petitioner in the suit filed by the Respondent No.6 against Respondent No.4 nor the Petitioner was impleaded as a party Respondent.

77. It was alleged in the said suit that the writ property was affected by reservation and thus it was necessary to obtain permission from the Government Authority to redevelop the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme to SRA. It was alleged that the Respondent No.4 Society had handed over the possession of the writ property to the Respondent No.6 for redevelopment. Respondent No.6 had already displayed name board on the writ property and started office on the writ property to implement the slum redevelopment scheme and started other activities on the said property for the construction of the slum dweller and tenements for sale.

78. It was alleged in the plaint that on 22 January, 2007, Respondent No.4 had threatened Respondent No.6 that they should implement Slum Redevelopment Scheme without any delay and start construction on the writ property. Respondent No.6 informed Respondent No.4 and other slum dwellers that there was reservation on the writ property, which was required to be deleted. The Respondent No.4 also had to take the NOC from the land owners on the suit plots and in case they do not get the no objection to develop the writ property under the Slum Redevelopment Scheme, then the writ property would be required to be acquired by the Government under the Slum Act. Only thereafter, the Respondent No.6 could implement the Slum Development Act after getting building planning sanction from the SRA. It was further alleged in paragraph 9 that Respondent No.6 had already spent Rs.12,00,000/- on the Respondent No.4 Society.

79. In Paragraph 10 of the plaint, it was alleged by Respondent No.6 that on 24 January, 2007, some of the members of the Respondent No.4 Society threatened Respondent No.6 that they shall remove Respondent No.6 from the writ property and they shall look for alternate developer to develop the writ property if Respondent No.6 did not start implementing the Slum Development Scheme. Respondent No.6 sought leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

80. It is surprising that the Development Agreement was executed on 7 August, 2006 and an irrevocable power of attorney was executed on 2 October, 2006. The suit was lodged on 6 February, 2007. The Respondent No.6 had already made an application to the Additional Collector on 4th March, 2007 during the pendency of the said suit. The Respondent No.4 executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of Respondent 6 on 16 March, 2007 after the said suit came to be filed by Respondent No.6. No writ of summons was served on the society and its members. No written statement came to be filed by the society in the said suit. Neither Respondent No. 4 nor Respondent No.6 developer produced any NOC from the Petitioners being the land owner in respect of the writ property. According to the Respondent No.6, they had informed the Respondent No.4 Society and other slum dwellers that NOC from the land owner would be required for deletion of the reservation of the writ property. It is not the case of the Respondent No.4 society that the society had applied for NOC from the Petitioner for deletion of the reservation or for the redevelopment.

81. Within a very short span of time, from the date of the execution of the development agreement, a collusive suit came to be filed by the Respondent No.6 against Respondent No.4 for seeking absolute declaration and other rights in respect of the writ property which is owned by the Petitioner without impleading the Petitioner as party to the suit. The consent terms filed by and between the Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.6 would clearly indicate that the same was collusive with a view to commit fraud upon the Court and the Petitioner by suppressing the ownership of the Petitioner in the writ property and without impleading the petitioner as party Defendant.

82. The consent terms were filed with a view to produce the consent terms between the Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.4 in respect of the writ property before the SRA to acquire the writ property owned by the Petitioner. The execution application filed by the Respondent No.6 in the said collusive suit also would clearly indicate that the same was filed with a fraudulent intention to grab the property of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.4 Society has granted all the rights in respect of the writ property in favour of the Respondent No.6 which could have been granted only by the Petitioner or with consent of the Petitioner and not by the Respondent No.4 or its members.

83. A perusal of the record indicates that just prior to making an application for acquisition of the property, Respondent No. 4 and 6 fradulently and in collusion with each other obtained consent decree. The Respondent No.6 developer had announced to develop the property under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme even prior to filling suit and without approval of the Scheme. The Developer was fully confident that by entering into the Development Agreement by filing Consent Terms and by applying for permission to redevelop under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, it would be able to grab the property of the Petitioner.

84. The Respondent No.2 firstly declared the writ property as slum rehabilitation area on 26 August, 2015 i.e. much after report submitted by the SRA on the basis of which the land was acquired. On 16 November, 2013, the SRA had already issued a public notice under Section 14 of the Slum Act and called upon the owner to show cause as to why the writ property shall not be acquired. The Petitioner admittedly objected to the said acquisition proceeding and had submitted that he would redevelop the land itself and shall not be acquired. The SRA did not give any reply to the said communication dated 23rd November, 2013.

85. On 26 February, 2013, the Petitioner submitted written application before SRA and objected the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. The Petitioner thereafter, submitted another written representation on 1 March, 2014 before SRA and objected to the acquisition proceedings of the writ property. Hearing was simply adjourned to 11 April,

2014. Petitioner once again objected to the acquisition proceedings and submitted that he is ready and willing to develop the writ property.

86. On perusal of the record clearly indicates that on query raised by the State Government on 10 April, 2015, the SRA sent a clarification to the State Government that a decree was obtained by the Respondent No.6 Developer from the City Civil Court. In the said communication from SRA to the State Government, it was clearly admitted that no scrutiny of number of eligible slum dweller was carried out. It was falsely stated in the said response that the land owners did not take any objection to the acquisition proceedings.

87. It is a matter of record that on 15 October, 2016, the Petitioner filed writ petition contending that unless Reservation of Recreation Ground is removed or modified, no scheme was submitted. After 23 months, the State Government issued Notification under Section 14 of the Slum Act acquiring the writ property. It is the case of the Petitioner that no hearing was granted to the Petitioner before passing the impugned notification dated 17 November, 2016 under Section 14(1) of the Slum Act.

88. Respondent No.2 did not consider the proposal submitted by the Petitioner showing the willingness to carry out the development in respect of the writ property and objecting to the Respondent No.2 acquiring the said property. Instead of deciding those objections, the Petitioner was served with the notice for fixing the date of hearing for deciding the payment of compensation. The Petitioner rightly apprehended that the Respondent No.5 was going to retire on 30 June, 2017, and was not expected to do any justice.

89. Respondent No.5, Chief Executive Officer preponed the date of hearing from 27 June, 2017 to 20 June, 2017 and passed final order fixing the compensation on the preponed date. No notice of preponement of the date was issued to the Petitioner.

90. On 14 July, 2017, this Court passed an order of status quo in the said petition. The said status quo order has been continued from time to time and is in force. On 20 February, 2023, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner agreed to delete the Respondent No.5 from the cause title of this writ petitoin on instruction. He, however, made it celar that allegations against Respondent No.5 personally, though are dropped, Respondent No.5 being an officer of Respondent No.3 the Petitioner presses the allegations against him.

91. Mr. Balsara, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4-Society and learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 Developer could not point out as to what was the necessity of filing a suit before City Civil Court by Respondent No.6 against Respondent No.4 Society and that also without impleading the Petitioner as a land owner of the land within a short span of entering into an agreement. Learned counsel for the Society could not point out the necessity of filing the consent terms within a short span preceeded by an irrevocable power of attorney. The Society did not bother to file a written statement in the said suit controverting various allegations made in the plaint. Respondent No.4 Society also agreed to submit to the order of the Executing Court by accepting to grant all the reliefs sought by the Respondent No.6 Developer obviously with a view to commit fraud upon the Court and the Petitioner.

92. A perusal of the record further indicates that based on the said suit filed by the Respondent No.6 against Respondent No.4 and the consent terms obtained fraudulently in collusion with the Respondent No.4 without impleading the Petitioner as Party Defendant in the suit, Respondent No.4 applied for acquisition of the property to the Slum Authority. It is clear that when the State Government demanded certain clarification from the SRA Authority – the Chief Executive officer referred to the said collusive decree obtained by the Respondent No.6 against Respondent No.4 recording that no other developer could be appointed for redevelopment of the writ property.

93. The entire process of the proceedings initiated by the Chief Executive Officer on SRA was based on such fradulently obtained consent decree by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 from the City Civil Court. It was not the case of the Respondent No.4 or Respondent No.6 that though they had applied for consent of the Petitioner for redevelopment being the owner of the writ property, Petitioner had refused to grant such consent for the purpose of redevelopment. Since the entire order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of SRA is based on the such fraudulent consent decree depriving the Petitioner of his valuable rights in the writ property, the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA deserves to be quashed and set aside on this ground itself.

94. Respondent Nos.[4] and 6 did not stop their fraudulent acts in grabbing the property of the Petitioner but also proceeded further by making an application for execution of the said consent decree and obtained various harsh orders from the Executing Court in collusion with each other in respect of the writ property. Respondent No.4 Society made an application on 6 May, 2011 to the Deputy Collector ENC- Removal, requesting to send the said proposal for acquisition of the writ property and submit a report regarding the consent decree obtained by the parties.

95. The Deputy Collector requested the society to bring the said decree on record for acquisition of the writ property. In view of the agreement mentioned in the application that City Civil Court had restrained 498 and remaining other slum dwellers from joining any other society or available for implementing of the SRA Scheme as per consent decree, the possession of the writ property was with the Respondent No.4 society and Respondent No.6 developer.

96. It is clear that the SRA submitted a report to the State Government on 2 December, 2014 based on the said fradulently obtained consent terms and refered to the said suit and the consent decree passed by the City Civil Court. By a separate order passed by this Court, the order passed by the said Chief Executive Officer who was being retired after few days after so called hearing, this Court has recorded a finding that the impugned order in respect of the adjoining property was fradulently antidated by the Chief Executive Officer and accordingly this Court set aside the order passed under Section 14 of the Slum Act. In our view merely because various subsequent acts are taken by te Respondents, including obtaining NOC for the purpose of development of the writ property would not legalize the order passed by the SRA based on the fraudulently obtained consent decree behind the back of the Petitioner owner.

97. A perusal of the Roznama produced on record in the said suit filed by Respondent No.6 before the City Civil Court indicates that no writ of summons was served upon by the Respondent No. 4 Society by the Respondent No.6 Society. No notice of motion was moved for interim relief. The Respondent No.4 Society appeared on its own without issuing any writ of summons and collusively filed consent terms.

98. It is a matter of record that though Respondent No.6 filed a notice of motion in this writ petition, inter alia, vacating the status quo order dated 27 July, 2017, this Court did not vacate the status quo order. Though this Court passed an order of status quo on 14 July, 2017, Respondent No.6 obtained various No Objection Certificates from various Authorities for violation of the said order. In our view, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 is right in submitting that the land in question was declared as a slum rehabilitation area only on 23 August, 2018, and only thereafter the Petitioner could submit the scheme under Regulation 33(1) of the Development Control Regulation.

99. In view of the collusive suit filed by Respondent No.6 against Respondent No. 4 and in view of the collusive decree that Respondent No.4 Society cannot appoint any other developer for development of the property, the Slum Authority even otherwise would not have passed any other order in breach of the consent decree obtained by the Respondent No.4 fraudulently.

100. A bare perusal of the record further indicates that the scheme, Acceptance Note / letter records that fresh scheme was submitted in August, 2019 jointly by M/s. Halleys Dreamworks Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No.6 which clearly indicates that the acquisition had been abandoned and in place thereof a new proposal was submitted by the said M/s. Halleys Dreamworks Private Limited along with Respondent No.6 Developer in August, 2019. The SRA had accepted the new scheme subject to caveat that upon subject to undertaking and outcome of the writ petition No. 1152/2002 and Writ Petition No. 2283/2017 and Writ Petition No. 2238 of 2017 pending before this Court would be binding on them.

101. In our view, the submission of new scheme and obtaining order by Respondent No.6 from the SRA is ex-facie in violation of the status quo order passed by this Court in this Writ Petition.

102. A perusal of NOCs obtained by the developer would indicate that Respondent No.6 had already entered into agreement of joint venture with M/s. Halleys Dreamworks Private Limited or prior to the date of issuance of Notification under Section 14 of the Slum Act i.e. dated 17 November,

2016. It is thus clear that it was a pre-planned strategy of Respondent No.6 to enter into a joint venture agreement with another developer, to file a collusive suit in the City Civil Court against the society, which would not oppose the said suit and would file consent terms granting all the rights in favour of the developer which they could not have granted and thereafter, applied for acquisition of the property. It is unfortunate that Respondent No.2 SRA overlooked these facts and acted upon such fraudulently obtained decree, so as to deprive the Petitioners from his own property and pass an illegal order in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 6

103. Since the order of acquiring property under Section 14(1) is fradulently obtained, the subsequent order for payment of compensation also cannot sustain. In our view the report of the SRA to the State Government that there was no objection raised by the Petitioner in the redevelopment of the property by the Respondent No.4 is ex-facie contrary to the record and is misleading. The Petitioner had never refused to redevelop the writ property and had made an offer to redevelop the writ property which offer was on record before SRA.

104. In our view Mr. Singh rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. (supra), and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Reserve Bank Employees’ Snehdhara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra), in suport of the submission that the orders fradulently obtained, cannot sustain.

105. There is no substance in the submission made by Mr. Balsara for Respondent No.4 Society that there was any failure on the part of the Petitioner in submitting rehabilitation scheme or that the Petitioner could have implemented the slum rehabilitation scheme when the subject property was declared as slum by Notification under Section 4 on 15 October, 1977 and though there was a reservation on the said writ property.

106. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that Petitioner did not challenge the consent decree and did not make any application under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is concerned, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel. The decree obtained fradulently by the party, can be challenged even in the collateral proceedings.

107. Insofar as judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Mrs. Kamal Sukumar Durgule and Ors (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the Society is concerned, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case even remotely and does not advance the case of the Respondent No.4.

108. Insofar as judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Susme Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, SRA and Ors. (supra), is also distinguishable on the facts. In the facts of this case, the Petitioner owner had shown his readiness and willingness to develop the writ property and has been deprived of exercising his preferential rights to develop the writ property. This Court in case of Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has recognized the preferential right of the owner to develop a property under Slum Scheme.

109. There is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that there was no violation of principles of natural justice committed by the Chief Executive Officer-SRA in passing the impugned order.

110. In our view, since the entire steps taken by Respondent Nos.[4] and 6 in grabbing the property of the Petitioner are fradulent and upon fradulently obtaining the consent decree from the City Civil Court, the order passed by the Slum Authorities for acquisition of the writ property of the Petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.

111. We accordingly pass the following order:

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses

(ii) The application filed by Respondent No.4 Society before Respondent No.3- Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority for acquisition of the writ property is dismissed.

(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.

112. Mr. Balsara, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 – Society applies for stay of the operation of the order passed by this Court today, which is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Application for stay is rejected. (M.M. SATHAYE. J.) ( R. D. DHANUKA, J. )