The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to submit a redevelopment scheme, despite an opportunity granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, did not entitle the petitioners to stall the redevelopment process.

JUDGMENT

R.D.DHANUKA, J. - Rule. Mr.Shastri, learned AGP waives service for the respondent no.1. Mr.Patil, learned counsel waives service for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Mr.Sakhalkar, learned counsel waives service for the respondent nos.5 and 6. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 9/2/2017, report dtd. 9/2/2017 and the notification dtd. 23/5/2018 issued by the respondents.

3. The petitioners also prayed for a writ of mandamus for an order and direction against the respondent no.2 - Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and the respondent no.3 - Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to first accord/offer a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to redevelop the said land in accordance with the law under the provisions of Sec. 13(1) read with Sec. 3D(b)(iii) and Sec. 3B(4)(c) of Chapter IA of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short "the Slum Act"). Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the absolute owners of a piece of land bearing CTS No.46, 46/1 to 39 situated at Village Sahar, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai admeasuring 3022.40 sq. mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as "the writ property"). It is the case of the petitioners that on 3/7/2015, the respondent no.6 developer approached the petitioners for purchase of the writ property. On 4 th August 2015, the respondent no.6 made an application before the CEO of SRA for seeking acquisition of land bearing CTS Nos.22, 27, 27/1 to 11, 28, 28/1, 44, 44/1 to 4, 45, 46, 46/1 to 39 as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the provisions of Sec. 14(1) of the Slum Act without giving any notice/intimation to the petitioners.

5. On 23/9/2015, the respondent no.3 issued a notice to conduct survey of the said area. The petitioner no.1-trust opposed the said survey being conducted in such shoddy and hasty manner. Survey of the said area however, was carried out. On 16 th January 2016, the respondent no.6 made an application to the SRA for declaring the said area which includes the writ land as a Slum Rehabilitation Area. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have not been issued any notice or were not informed by the respondent no.6 developer in respect of the said application dtd. 16/1/2016.

6. On 6/2/2016, the SRA issued a public notice inviting objections from the interested persons to the proposed declaration as a Slum Rehabilitation Area. The CEO of SRA issued two notices i.e. 1/3/2016 and 10/3/2016 respectively only to the respondent no.5-Society, the respondent no.6 developer and the promoter of the Thakur Chawl calling upon them to participate in a hearing to be conducted on the issue of declaration of the said area as Slum Rehabilitation Area.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that ex parte hearing was conducted by CEO of SRA on 15/3/2016 without granting any opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the same proceedings. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 Trust could not take any steps to represent their side before the CEO, SRA. On 7 th April 2016, CEO of SRA passed an order declaring and notifying inter alia the writ property as Slum Rehabilitation Area in terms of Sec. 3C of the Slum Act. On 11/4/2016, a Gazette Notification was issued publishing the Notification notifying and declaring inter alia the writ land as Slum Rehabilitation Area.

8. On 30/5/2016, the SRA issued a notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why the writ property should not be acquired under Sec. 14(1) of the Slum Act. By letter dated 14 th June 2016, the petitioners contended that the said land had not been declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area and sought inspection of all the documents. It is the case of the petitioners that as there was