JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Abhay Patki, Learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent-State. Mr. Abhijeet Desai waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, SRA. Mr. Cherag Balsara waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 4. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The Petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside Notification dated 17 November, 2016, issued by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of the property bearing CTS No. 29 and 32, admeasuring about 7154.3 and 500 sq. mtrs respectively lying and situated at Village Dindoshi, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai and also prays for quashing and setting aside Public Notice dated 29 April, 2017 issued by Respondent No. 2 and all the consequent proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2(Hereinafter referred as ‘writ property’). The Petitioner also prays for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside consequent proceedings including but not limited to the Order dated 20 June, 2018 passed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he is owner of plots bearing CTS No. 29 (Admeasuring 7154.30 sq. meter) and CTS No. 32 (Part) (Admeasuring 515 sq. mtr.) at Village Dindoshi, Borivali, Mumbai. The adjoining plots bearing CTS Nos. 30, 31 and 33 are declared as Slum. Respondent No. 4 is proposed Society of Slum Dwellers.

4. On 7 August, 2006 a Development Agreement is executed between the Proposed Society and the Developer that is Respondent No. 4 and 6. On 2 October, 2006 Respondent No. 4 executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney appointing Respondent No. 6 as their Agent for redevelopment and securing title. On 8 February, 2007 Respondent No. 6 developer filed Short Cause Suit No. 1124/2007 against Respondent No. 4 Society and its proposed Managing Committee members inter-alia praying for a declaration that the Developer alone has a right to develop the writ property and for permanent injunction against Respondent No. 4 Society from disturbing the alleged possession of the Respondent No. 6.

5. It was alleged in the said plaint that the cause of action had arisen on 24 January,2007 when the society members threatened to dispossess the Respondent No. 6 and started looking for alternate developer. On 6 March, 2007 the Respondent No. 4-Society applied to the SRA for acquiring the writ lands. It is the case of the Petitioner that the application was made by Respondent No. 6 Developer. Different names of owners of the writ property were given. According to the Petitioner, a false letter was given by the developer stating that there was no litigation pending in respect of the writ property, though the suit filed by the Respondent No. 6 developer against Respondent No. 4 Society itself was pending.

6. On 16 March, 2007 the Respondent No. 4 Society and the Respondent No. 6 executed a Development Agreement in respect of the writ property. On 9 July, 2008 Respondent Society has alleged to have passed Resolution authorising proposed managing committee members to file Consent Terms in the said suit filed by the Respondent No. 6 before the Bombay City Civil Court. On 21 January, 2009 the parties to the said suit executed Consent Terms and obtained a consent decree.

7. On 28 November, 2011, Developer filed an Execution Application against the Respondent No. 4 Society and its proposed Managing Committee members for seeking for appointment of a Court Commissioner for declaration that the Developer was in possession of all the lands and for direction to the members of the Respondent No. 4 Society to execute Individual Development Agreements and to vacate the premises in their occupation with Police help etc.

8. On 19 December, 2012 the Respondent No. 4 Society gave consent and submitted to an order on the said Execution Application filed by Respondent No. 6 Developer and all the reliefs in the execution