JUDGMENT :

R. D. Dhanuka, J.

Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 7 waive service. The respondent nos.7 to 10 are formal parties and are not contesting the proceedings as recorded in the order dated 8th January, 2019. By consent of the petitioner and the respondent nos.1 to 7, rule is returnable forthwith. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :

2. Salsette Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Limited was the original owner of several plots of land including CTS nos.371 and 374. By two registered Deed of Conveyance dated 9th May, 2007 and 29th August, 2007, executed between the said society and the petitioner, various plots including CTS nos.371 and 374 were transferred to the petitioner by the said society. The petitioner claims to be an owner of those lands.

3. Insofar as the plots bearing CTS nos.371 (part) and 374 (part) are concerned, these plots were declared along with few other plots as "Slum Rehabilitation Area" vide notification dated 18th September, 2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under section 3(C)(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short "the Slum Act").

4. The petitioner desired of developing larger property in phase wise manner and submitted the plan for development of the portion of the larger property admeasuring 20,770.70 sq. mtrs. On 26th October, 2010, the authority issued a letter of intent in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the majority of the slum dwellers residing on the larger portion gave their consent and entered into individual agreements with the petitioner which was more than 70% consent necessary for application of the slum scheme. Insofar as CTS no.371 is concerned, 34 members/slum dwellers gave their consent and entered into the individual agreements with the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the scheme/proposal in respect of development of that portion and also of the larger property.

5. Some time in the month of December, 2011, an Association of Barretto Compound Welfare Society and its members filed an appeal under section 3C (2) of the Slum Act numbered as Appeal No.4 of 2012 challenging the notification dated 18th September, 2010 insofar as it relates to the plots bearing CTS nos.371 (part) and 374 (part) before the Maharashtra Slum Areas (IC&R) Tribunal, Mumbai) for short "Tribunal"). It was the case of the original appellant that they were the tenants of one Ms.Liberata Rodrigues and thereafter of M/s.Shri Ganesh Enterprises. The appeal was preferred on the ground that the properties bearing CTS nos.371(part) and 374 (part) did not meet the slum criteria specified in section 4 read with 3C(1) of the Slum Act and thus part of the notification was erroneous and illegal.

6. The said Appeal No.4 of 2012 was disposed of by an order and judgment dated 26th February, 2013 passed by the said Tribunal by allowing the said appeal and quashing the notification dated 18th September, 2010. The petitioner challenged the said order and judgment by filing a Writ Petition in this Court (612 of 2013). By an order and judgment dated 23rd December, 2015, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by setting aside the order and judgment dated 26th February, 2013 and remanded the matter back for consideration afresh before the said Tribunal. The respondent nos.3 to 6 also have filed an intervention application in the said Writ Petition No.612 of 2013 by filing a Notice of Motion Nos.270 of 2013 and 323 of 2013. A Special Leave Petition filed by the original appellant impugning the order and judgment passed by this Court on 23rd December, 2015 came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 8th August, 2016.

7. On 6th February, 2017, the respondent nos.3 to 6 along with one Juliet D'Souza (nee Menezes) filed an application for intervention/impleadment in the Appeal No.4 of 2012 before the Slum Tribunal. By a detail