D.K.DESHMUKH, J.:

1. This petition has been filed basically challenging the Notification dated 4-11-1993 issued by the Government under Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act.

2. The relevant facts are, the subject matter of this petition is a property bearing Plot No. 167/B Dadar-Matunga Estate with a building standing thereon. Petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 are the owners of the property. Petitioners Nos.3 to 10 are the tenants occupying the building which is standing on the land. The Petitioner No.11 is the Builder with whom the owners/Petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 have entered into an agreement for development of the property. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 are the authorities of the State Government. Respondents Nos. 6 & 7 are also the tenants occupying the building on the aforesaid plot. Mr.Jahagirdar, the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the Petitioner No.5 has recently expired leaving behind two legal representatives namely Ms.Pratima Lele and Mrs.Nilima Gokhale. He further states that the Petitioners Nos.1, 2 & 11 will abide by the agreement between the original Petitioner No.5 on one hand and the Petitioners Nos. 1,2 and 11 on the other hand, in so far as legal representatives are concerned.

3. The present petition was filed basically for allowing the Petitioners to redevelop the property in view of the settlement arrived at between them, though the property was acquired under Chapter VIII-A of the MH& AD Act for the purpose of its redevelopment. In so far as the acquisition proceedings that were taken up for acquisition of the property and subsequent developments are concerned, they have all been narrated in the affidavit of one Mr.Ganesh Rathod, Under Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 7th July, 2005. Paragraphs 2 to 8 of that affidavit read as under:

“2. I say that the Petitioners who are the owners and tenants of the property known as Datey Bhavan situate at Plot No.167/B, Dadar-Matunga Estate, Dadar(East), Mumbai, have filed the above captioned petition interalia, praying that they should be allowed to redevelop the property in view of the settlement arrived at between them, notwithstanding the acquisition of the property under Chapter VIII A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The Petitioners have also sought the quashing of the Government Resolution dated 26th April, 1989 (which is annexed as Exhibit C1 to the petition). I say that as regards the said prayers of the Petitioner, I have to respectfully say and submit as under:

3. I say that to solve the problem of the cessed buildings belonging to Category-A in the city of Mumbai, Chapter VIII A was inserted in the MHAD Act, 1976 some time in the year 1986. I say that under Section 103 B of the said Chapter VIII A, a Society comprising of 70% of the tenants/occupants in a cessed building can approach the Respondent No.3 Board to move the State Government to acquire the land together with the existing building in the interest of its better preservation or for reconstruction of a new building in lieu of the old one and intimate their willingness to pay the amount of such acquisition. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the provisions of Chapter VIII A as and when required.

4. I say that a proposal was received from the Respondent No.3 by the State Government based on the request of the society of the tenants/occupiers. The Government had passed a Resolution and sanctioned the proposal for acquisition of the land mentioned therein. I say that pursuant to the said Resolution, the statutory process under the said Chapter was followed for acquisition of the property in question and ultimately a notification under Section 93(5) was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as a consequence of which the property has vested in the MBRRB.

5. I say that the provisions of Chapter VIII A are a subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matte