A. S. OKA, J.: - Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties taken up for final hearing forthwith. Contesting respondents have filed their replies and the petitioners have filed their rejoinder.

2. Certain important issues have been raised in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the procedure to be followed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short SRA) while considering the Applications made by the owners/developers/proposed co - operative societies of slum dwellers. With a view to understand the controversy involved in this Petition, a brief reference will have to be made to the facts of the case.

3. The petitioners claim that the petitioner No. 20 is a proposed Cooperative Housing Society formed by hutment dwellers residing on plot of land bearing city survey Nos. 522 to 526, 528 to 532, 533(PT), 534 to 537 admeasuring about 15,600 Sq.mts. situated at village Malad, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai 400 097. The said plot of land admeasuring 15.600 Sq.mts. is hereinafter referred to as the area of the petitioners. An Application was made by the petitioner No. 20 (proposed Society) on 8th November, 2004 to the SRA for grant of approval of the Slum Development Scheme under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations for the City of Mumbai, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as D. C. Regulations). At the time of submitting the Application. the claim of the petitioner No. 20 and the respondent No. 7developers appointed by the petitioner No. 20 was that there were 326 slum dwellers• in the area of the petitioners and the petitioner No. 20 had obtained consent of more than 70% of the eligible hutment dwellers. Lateron the petitioner No. 20 claimed that it had support of more hutment dwellers. It must be noted here that a larger plot including the area of the petitioners had already been declared as a slum under section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re - development) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Act). The area of the larger plot is 27.402.2 Sq.mts which is hereinafter referred to as larger area. The larger area was acquired under section 14(1) of the Slum Act on 19th July, 1999. The challenge in this Petition is to the sanction of one composite Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the entire larger area including the area of the petitioners. The challenge is also to the communication dated 2nd August, 2005 by which the Application made by the petitioner No. 20 for sanction of Rehabilitation Scheme in respect of the area of the petitioners was rejected.

4. The case of the opposing fourth and fifth respondent in short is that the fourth respondent, which was a proposed society, applied to the third respondent - Deputy Collector on 30th May, 1989 for acquisition of the larger area under section 14 of the Slum Act. Their case is that a Charitable Trust was the owner of the larger area. The said Charitable Trust applied to the Charity Commissioner for sanction of sale of area admeasuring 23,322 Sq.mts. out of larger area in favour of the respondent No.4 - Society. The Charity Commissioner by order dated 25th April, 1994 accorded sanction under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to the proposed transaction of sale. On 29th October, 1994, the fourth respondent - Society was registered. The area of operation of the fourth respondent - Society is a large plot including the larger area. According to the case of the fourth respondent, on 19th July, 1999 the order of acquisition of the larger area was passed under section 14(1) of the Slum Act and thus the larger area vested III the State Government from that date. The case is that repeatedly fourth respondent showed willingness to pay the compensation which will be awarded in favour of the owners on account of acquisition. On 23rd February, 2003 the fourth responde