The main legal point established in the judgment is that a formal declaration under section 4 of the Slum Act is not necessary for an area to be considered a slum rehabilitation area, and the use of machinery available under the Slum Act for eviction of unauthorized slum dwellers is permissible.

NISHITA MHATRE, J.

( 1 ) THIS Petition is a desperate attempt by some slum dwellers to stall a Slum Rehabilitation Project under which housing would be provided to 132 slum dwellers. The Petition challenges the Scheme of Slum Rehabilitation which has been approved by the Municipal Corporation of greater Mumbai and the Slum Rehabilitation authority. The Petitioners by this Petition further seek a Mandamus for declaring that the order dated 19-12-2001 passed by the additional Collector of the Maharashtra Slum areas (Improvement, Clearance and redevelopment) Act (for short, 'the Slum Act') under sections 33 and 38 and the order dated 30-09-2002 passed under section 35 of the Slum act void and illegal.

( 2 ) THE Petitioners claim to be a registered society representing the residents on a plot owned by Respondent No. 1 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' ). By a Resolution, the Corporation decided to redevelop the property on which about 156 hutments were in existence. The Corporation put up a proposal for developing the area and rehabilitating the slum dwellers residing in the huts on the property. A society known as mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , respondent No. 3 herein and M/s. Faithful developers, Respondent No. 4 herein submitted a proposal to develop the property. The entire property bearing CTS No. 138-B-1/74 is reserved for a public purpose, that is, for municipal staff quarters and for widening of the existing road. The Corporation by a resolution had approved of the proposed construction of the Nurses' quarters for K. E. M. Hospital on this plot with an understanding that the existing eligible tenaments on the plot would be housed at the same site. The slum has been censused in 1976 and pitch holder cards have been issued to the slum dwellers. Subsequently a census was undertaken in 1985 and then in 1995, and it was found that there were 132 eligible tenaments on the plot who were entitled to accommodation by way of rehabilitation.

( 3 ) A rehabilitation scheme proposed by Respondent No. 3-Society under Regulation 33 (10) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 framed under the maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, has been sanctioned. Out of 156 tenaments 132 were found eligible as they were in existence prior to 1995, when the census was conducted. 116 of those eligible who have executed agreements with Respondent No. 3 have agreed to shift into new premises when constructed. 80 persons have already shitted to transit camps. It appears members of the Petitioners were obstructing the Project. Notices for eviction were therefore, issued to them. All the affected parties, including the 76 slum dwellers who were obstructing the scheme were heard by the competent Authority. A notification was issued on 25-10-2001 by the State Government in exercise of its powers under section 3 of the slum Act, under which the Additional Collector was appointed as the competent authority for lands in Mumbai city. On 19-12-2001, an order was passed under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum act, by the Competent Authority evicting those occupants who had not vacated the premises. Immediate action was directed in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of the Slum act so that the redevelopment of the property could be carried out without any hindrance. An appeal preferred under section 35 of the Slum act was not entertained. Aggrieved by these orders under sections 33 and 35, the Petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) MR. Govilkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the plot of land has not been declared as a "slum area" as required under section 4 of the Slum Act. He submits that unless there is a declaration by the competent authority that an area is a slum, no redevelopment or rehabilitation under this Act can be undertaken. He places reliance on the judgments of a learned Single Judge of this c