IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of estoppel applies in cases where a party relies on a promise or representation made by another party, particularly in the context of rehabilitation and eviction under slum development laws.

JUDGMENT

Milind N. Jadhav, J. - The present Writ Petitions assail separate orders both dated 20.04.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 - Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (for short 'AGRC'). By virtue of the said orders, the common order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the Tahsildar - 2 (Western Suburban) Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short 'SRA') under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Regulation) Act, 1971 (for short 'the said Act') is upheld and further consequential directions are given for execution of Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (for short 'PAAA'). The orders are identical. Facts are also identical. The order dated 30.12.2022 is at Exhibit 'E' - page No.37 of Writ Petition No.14111 of 2023. By this order, Writ Petitioners are directed to vacate their structure immediately and hand over the same to Respondent No.3 -Developer with further consequential direction that structures of dissenting members should be demolished by the Competent Authority if they do not cooperate and vacate their structures. After passing of the above orders, both Petitioners agreed to vacate their structures. Further orders regarding vacating the structures have been passed in the present Petitions itself. However, the dispute is now restricted only to prayer clause 'c' in both Petitions. Prayer clause 'c' pertains to dispute raised regarding permanent alternate accommodation offered to both Petitioners in lieu of their earlier allotment due to revision in the sanctioned plan, which was not informed to Petitioners.

2. Briefly stated, Respondent No.2 - SRA called upon the Petitioners to vacate their structure by issuing statutory notices under the said Act. Since Petitioners did not vacate the structures, Respondent No.3 - Developer sought demolition of the structures through Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 issued notice for hearing to Petitioners. Hearing and meeting was held in the presence of Respondent No.2 on 14.06.2022 between parties. It was demanded by Petitioners that allotment of permanent alternate shop premises be given to Petitioners as per approved plan dated 06.09.2021 as per their allotment which was confirmed in the rehab building in the presence of Respondent No.2. The approved plan dated 06.09.2021 was at that time shown to Petitioners and Respondent No.3 -Developer confirmed the rehab tenement to be allotted to both Petitioners being Shop Nos.33 and 37 on the front side in the rehab building. On the basis of such assurance and confirmation, Respondent No.2 passed order dated 30.12.2022 directing Petitioners to vacate and hand over the existing premises to the Developer within 15 days. Petitioners called upon Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for compliance of allotment as per the approved plan dated 06.09.2021 of the alternate rehab tenement to Petitioners and also sought transit rent from Developer.

3. Above facts in both the Writ Petitions are identical and not disputed. Writ Petitioners namely Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad and Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma are admittedly occupants / members of commercial slum structures (shops). This is a development under Regulation 33(10) of the DPCR 2334 of a plot of land situated at Charkop, Mumbai - 67. There are 216 slum dwellers. Writ Petitioners are the only two slum dwellers who had not vacated their slum structures despite order of eviction dated 30.12.2022 passed by Respondent No.2 - Tahsildar, SRA and the impugned orders dated 20.04.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 - AGRC.

4. Grievance of both Petitioners is with respect to location of permanent alternate accommodation of shop premises in the Rehab Building which is being allotted to them considering that both Writ Petitioners are tenants of commercial structures. One of the grievance exhibited by both Writ Petitioners is that in the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by Tahsildar and the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by AGRC affirming their eviction, there is no clarity on the permanent alternate acco