AGRC lacks original jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Slum Act to adjudicate disputes not referred by the State Government; it can only exercise appellate authority.

JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Sonak J) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioners, by instituting the present Petition, have sought the following reliefs: -

a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ, order and/or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order and/or direction calling for the records and proceedings in respect of the Impugned Order dated 5th January, 2022 passed in Application No.141 of 2021 and after examining the validity, legality and propriety of the Impugned Order, be pleased to set aside and quash the same.

b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to sanction plans which are in conformity to the consent terms dated 9th May, 2012 and the Development Agreement dated 27th November, 2020 and revoke sanction granted to any other previous plans which are contrary to the Consent terms dated 9th May, 2012 and the Development Agreement dated 27th November, 2020;

c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, effect and implementation of the Impugned Order dated 5th January, 2022.

d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 3, its servants, agents putting up construction which is contrary to the entitlement of the Petitioner No. 1 as recorded in the Consent Terms dated 9th May, 2012 and the Development Agreement dated 27th November, 2020.

e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.2 and its officers from granting approval to any plan in respect of redevelopment of the said plot which are contrary to the entitlement of the Petitioner No.1 as recorded in the Consent Terms dated 9th May, 2012 and the Development Agreement dated 27th November, 2020.

f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.3, its servants, agents, assigns from creating third party rights in respect of the shop on the ground floor of the building that is to be constructed on the said plot for the Petitioner No.1 admeasuring 818 square feet with a 25-foot frontage facing the 16th Road, TPS-III, Bandra (West) which is shown on the approved plan.

g) Interim and Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (d) to (g).

h) Cost of the Petition to be provided for.

i) Such other and further orders as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the co- ordinate Bench comprising Revati Mohite Dere and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ. made the following interim order on 20th April 2022:-

“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 5th January 2022, passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (‘AGRC’), in Application No.141 of 2021 along with other substantive reliefs.

3. Learned Counsel for the p