JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Abhay Patki waives service on behalf of State. Mr. Abhijeet Desai waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 2-SRA. Mr. Cherag Balsara waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 4. Mr. Yogesh Patil waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 6. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2338 of 2017 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Notification dated 17th November, 2016 issued under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short “Slum Act”) to the extent of acquisition of Petitioner’s land bearing CTS No. 31 (part), admeasuring near about 3705.2 sq. mtrs of Village Dindoshi, Taluka Borivali, District Mumbai and also for quashing and setting aside the impuged Notice dated 20th March, 2017 and impugned Award dated 20th June, 2017 passed under Section 17 of the Slums Act to the extent of the writ property. The Petitioners also pray for writ of mandamus against the Respondents not to act upon the impugned Notification dated 17 November, 2016 and not to grant/issue any further permission's in favour of the Respondent No. 4 for implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the writ property.

3. The Petitioners are the owners of the writ property. On 27th October, 1977, SRA issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Slums Act and published in the official Gazette declaring that the writ property as slum area. It is the case of the Petitioners that on 19th September, 1985 by Articles of Agreement, the Petitioners purchased the writ property from the original owner Mr. Venilal J. Kanthara by paying valid consideration to him. The said Article of Agreement dated 19th September, 1985 was duly registered with the Office of Registration on 5th October, 1985. The Index-II was issued by the Competent Authority showing names of the Petitioners as the owners of the writ properties. The property card was also issued in respect of the writ property showing the names of the Petitioners as the owners.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners have been regularly paying the property taxes. On 3rd February, 2010, the Petitioners addressed a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of SRA informing that the Petitioners are the owners of the subject property and no Slum Rehabilitation Scheme should be sanctioned on the subject property without their consent. The Petitioners also showed their readiness and willingness to develop the subject property under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

5. On 12th March, 2010, the Petitioners made a complaint to Senior Police Inspector, Goregaon Police Station informing that on the subject property, a society has put up a board of developer stating that they are going to develop the subject property under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. On or around 30th March, 2010, the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and the Competent Authority, Malad and the Additional Collector (Encroachment), Mumbai Suburban District issued a public notice in respect of the proposed acquisition of the subject property.

6. It is the case of the Petitioners that the said public notice was issued without supplying a copy of the written application filed by the Respondent No. 4 for acquiring the writ property. On 3rd April, 2010, the Petitioners filed their written objections with the Deputy Collector (Encroachment), the Competent Authority and the Additional Collector (Encroachment), Mumbai Suburban District in respect of the proposed acquisition of the subject property and pointed out that they being the owners were interested in development of the subject property themselves under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and therefore writ property should not be acquired under Section 14 of the Slums Act.

7. Some time in the year 2010, the Petitioners filed a Writ P