ORDER

1. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of an order dated 27-11-2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai whereby Writ Petitions (L) Nos. 2959 and 2994 of 2014 have been dismissed. Also under challenge is an order dated 18-12-2014 passed by the High Court dismissing Review Petitions (L) Nos. 95 and 96 of 2014.

2. Writ Petitions Nos. 2959 and 2994 of 2014 were filed by the appellants herein before the High Court to challenge an order dated 10-11-2014 passed by the Executive Engineer, MHADA under Section 95-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 whereby the writ petitioners had been asked to vacate the premises in their occupation and shift to alternative accommodation being made available by the Cooperative Housing Society to facilitate redevelopment of the area in question. The challenge primarily rested on the applicability of Section 95-A and the powers of the Executive Engineer to issue a direction like the one impugned in the writ petitions. The High Court examined the matter and found that there was no legal or other infirmity in the order passed by the Executive Engineer which had the sanction of law. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed by the High Court by a common order dated 27-11-2014 assailed in the present appeals as already noticed earlier.

3. When the matters came up before us initially on 23-7-2015, several contentions were urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, some of which even suggested that the entire process of allotment of additional land, grant of FSI and related issues were in breach of the statutory provisions besides being prejudicial to public interest inasmuch as the authorities had not protected public interest while extending benefits which would enrich the builder engaged by the society for redevelopment. The contentions urged in that regard were noticed by us and directions for filing of additional affidavits and furnishing of additional information relevant to the questions urged at the Bar issued.

4. For facility of reference, we may at this stage extract the order passed by us on 23-7-2015:

“1. Heard. From a reading of the judgment delivered by the High Court in Biju Bharat v. State of Maharashtra, WP No. 2654 of 2012 order dated 29-10-2013 (Bom) it appears that one of the questions that came up before the High Court was regarding the reallocation of the area under the occupation of members of Charkop Kandivali Ektanagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority had, it appears, received a letter dated 26-10-2009 from MHADA approving the reallocation of the land with the Housing Society apparently on account of a certain MRTS Car Depot in or around their land. A new letter of intent was consequently issued on 3-11-2009 to the MHADA as landowners, with copies to the Society as well as the developer. The circumstances in which the land area of the Society, mentioned above, was reallocated were not however very clearly set out in the judgment nor has letter dated 26-10-2009, been produced.

2. We, therefore, direct MHADA to place on record a copy of letter dated 26-10-2009 with an additional affidavit explaining the circumstances in which land with the Housing Society aforementioned was reallocated. The affidavit would also state whether the land so vacated or to be vacated by the Society is amenable to any developmental activity including construction of any high-rise building on the same.

3. It is common ground that the original FSI admissible to the land under the occupation of the Charkop Kandivali Ektanagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. was 1.2 + 0.8. This FSI was raised by the competent authority to 2.5. According to Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 5 developer, this increased FSI was given on account of the clubbing of schemes under Sections 33(5) and 33(14)(D) of the Development Control Regulations Act, 1991. While it is not in dispute that FSI was raised to 2.5 by 17,00