JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioners challenge the order and the notification issued under section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, hereinafter called as "the said Act", contending that the same are in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. 3. The subject matter of the dispute relates to the piece of land bearing CTS No. 101 and 10171 to 1-8 and a structure, standing thereon situate at Anand Nagar, Sanman Singh Marg, Bhandup (West) of village Kanjur, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District. The petitioners claim to be the lessees in respect of the said land admeasuring 1633 sq. yards and the owners of the structures of four chawls constructed therein. By Notification dated 16th September, 1976, the said property was sought to be declared as the slum area under section 4 of the said Act. However, in Appeal No. 38 of 1982, by an order dated 28th October, 1983, the said declaration was set aside. Thereafter by notification dated 16th August, 1995 published in the Government Gazette dated 31st August, 1995 the said property was again declared as the slum area under section 4 of the said Act. The same was followed by Show Cause Notice dated 29th November, 1996 under section 14(1) of the said Act calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the said property should not be acquired for the purpose specified in the show cause notice. The petitioners objected to the said acquisition by reply dated 20th December, 1996. It was specifically contended that the respondents had not issued any notice under section 5 of the said Act prior to the proposed action for acquisition of the area under section 14(1) of the said Act. Nearly after a lapse of five years therefrom, another notice under section 14(1) was sought to be issued on 17th June, 2001 which was also replied by the petitioners by their letter dated 30th June, 2001 again reiterating that there had been no notice issued under section 5(1) of the said Act before issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 7th June, 2001. Meanwhile the petitioners also filed appeal under section 4(3) challenging the declaration under section 4 of the said Act. Meanwhile the petitioners also filed appeal under section 4(3) challenging the declaration under section 4 of the said Act. However, the same was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 8th March, 2002. The Writ Petition No. 6890 of 2002 preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Tribunal was also rejected by this Court by an order dated 1st July, 2003. Thereafter, the impugned notification came to be issued on 30th May, 2003 on the basis of the show cause notice dated 2nd December, 1996. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents could not have proceeded to acquire the land under section 14 of the said Act without complying with the provisions of law comprised under section 5(1) of the said Act, and in that regard reliance is placed in the unreported decision in the matter of (Balraj Tulsidas Pillai and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, in Writ Petition No. 826 of 1998 delivered by me on 20th August, 2003. The respondents on the other hand seek to justify the order and the notification by referring to section 3-D read with the G.R. dated 9th April, 1998 and the Development Control Regulation No. 33(10) issued under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter called as "the Planning Act" and placing reliance in the decision in the matter of (Pooja Enterprises and another v. C.E.O., S.R.A., Mhada, Mumbai and others)2, reported in 2000(3) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)421 . 5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following questions arise for consideration: (a) Whether the Government is empowered under the said Act to acquire the land under section 14(1) thereof without complying with the provisions of law contained under section 5(1) of the said Act? (b) Whether declaration of general scheme of rehabilitation under section 3-B and/or the Development Control Regulation No. 33(10) issued under the Planning Act, exempts requirement of declaration under section 3-C of the said Act? (c) Whether on applicability of the G.R. dated 9th April, 1998 an area declared as "slum" under the said Act can be deemed to be the slum rehabilitation area under the said Act? (d) Whether the provisions of section 3-D of the said Act apply to the proceedings in the matter in hand? 6. (c) Whether on applicability of the G.R. dated 9th April, 1998 an area declared as "slum" under the said Act can be deemed to be the slum rehabilitation area under the said Act? (d) Whether the provisions of section 3-D of the said Act apply to the proceedings in the matter in hand? 6. Section 14 of the said Act deals with the powers of the State Government to acquire the land. However, it empowers the Government to acquire the land only when it is found necessary to do so for the purpose specified in the said provision of law. The purpose specified in the said provision of law is either to execute any work of improvement in the slum area or any building in such area or to redevelop any clearance area. In other words, it is only when the land would be required for one of the purposes specified in section 14(1) that the acquisition of land could be justified under the said provision of law. 7. The expression "slum area" is clearly defined in the said Act under section 2(ga) to mean any area declared as such by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) of section 4. In terms of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4, any area which is or may be a source of danger to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area or of its neighbourhood, by reason of the area having inadequate or no basic amenities, or being insanitary, squalid, overcrowded or otherwise, and in term of Clause (b) thereof, the buildings in which any area, used or intended to be used for human habitation are either in any respect, unfit for human habitation or by reasons of dilapioation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such buildings, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities or any combination of these factors, detrimental to the health, safety or convenience of the public of the concerned area, then the competent authority being satisfied of the same may declare such area to be a slum area. 8. The Act does not define expression "clearance area". However, the provisions of law contained in section 11 of the said Act under Chapter IV empowers the competent authority to declare any slum area to be a clearance area. 8. The Act does not define expression "clearance area". However, the provisions of law contained in section 11 of the said Act under Chapter IV empowers the competent authority to declare any slum area to be a clearance area. The competent authority upon a report from any of its officer or other information in its possession, is satisfied in respect of any slum area, that the most satisfactory method of dealing with the conditions in the area is the demolition of all the buildings in the area, the authority may cause that area to be defined on a map in such manner as to exclude from the area any building which is not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health, and then it shall, by an order notified in the Official Gazette, declare the area so defined to be a clearance area, that is to say, an area to be cleared of all buildings in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. 9. It is therefore apparent that the Act clearly provides as to which area can be said to be a slum area and which area can be said to be a clearance area. When any work of improvement in relation to any slum area or any building in a clearance area is to be executed or a clearance area is to be redeveloped, and in that regard a representation is made by the competent authority regarding the requirement of such execution of improvement work or redevelopment work, the State Government can arrive at a conclusion about the necessity of such land to be acquired for the said purpose under section 14(1) of the said Act. As far as the need to execute the work of improvement is concerned, the provisions in that regard are to be found in Chapter III under section 5 onwards. However, prior to execution of any such work, the competent authority has to satisfy itself about the need of such work of improvement and in order to arrive at any such satisfaction, the competent authority has to give an opportunity of being heard to the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned. However, prior to execution of any such work, the competent authority has to satisfy itself about the need of such work of improvement and in order to arrive at any such satisfaction, the competent authority has to give an opportunity of being heard to the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned. In other words, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, in order to enable the Government to arrive at a conclusion about the necessity of acquisition of the land which is already declared as the slum area or clearance area or surrounded by any such area either for the purpose of execution of the work of improvement or that of redevelopment, it would be necessary for the State Government to have and to consider representation in that regard from the competent authority. In fact, section 14(1) clearly specifies the basis on which the Government can arrive at such conclusion regarding necessity of the acquisition of land and the basis specified thereunder indicate the representation from the competent authority in that regard. Considering the same, in Baraj Tulsidas Pillais case (supra), it was held thus :-- "Provisions of section 5(2) of the said Act therefore disclose that the competent authority may decide to carry out the improvement works and further can proceed to carry out the work only after considering the objections and suggestions received from the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned in reply to the notice issued under sub-section (1). In other words, the decision to cause improvement and to effect such improvement cannot be without giving an opportunity to the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned, and such opportunity has to be given in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act. Undoubtedly, section 14(1) speaks of the decision to acquire the land on representation by the competent authority regarding the need of such land for the purpose of carrying out and executing the works of improvement or redevelopment. Undoubtedly, section 14(1) speaks of the decision to acquire the land on representation by the competent authority regarding the need of such land for the purpose of carrying out and executing the works of improvement or redevelopment. In other words, provisions of section 5(2) of the said Act reveals that the competent authority has to hear the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned prior to deciding the need of improvement and when such improvement cannot be carried out without acquisition of the land to make a representation in that regard to the Government pursuant to which the Government can proceed to acquire land for such purpose. Being so, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the decision of the competent authority regarding the need for improvement has to precede the action by the State Government under section 14 to acquire the land and such a decision of the competent authority cannot be without giving an opportunity to the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned to put forth their say in the matter. The conclusion, which is to be arrived, at in the circumstances, is that while in relation to the decision of the need for improvement, the owners, occupiers and other persons concerned must have an opportunity of being heard prior to such decision in terms of the provisions of section 5 and the interested persons are entitled to have such opportunity of being heard in the matter before the decision for acquisition of land for the purpose of giving effect to the improvement." 10. The petitioners are therefore justified in contending that the action under section 14(1) cannot precede the action either under section 5 or under section 11 of the said Act, apart from the need of appropriate representation by the competent authority to the State Government. The requirement of representation is not an empty formality but it is necessary to invoke powers of acquisition of land. It is pertinent to note that the acquisition under section 14(1) cannot be done without proper show cause notice in that regard to the persons concerned. Obviously, the notice should disclose the representation by the competent authority having represented about the need of the land for improvement or redevelopment, so that the addressee of the notice can effectively putforth his say in the matter. Obviously, the notice should disclose the representation by the competent authority having represented about the need of the land for improvement or redevelopment, so that the addressee of the notice can effectively putforth his say in the matter. It is the constitutional requirement that nobody can be deprived of his immoveable property without following the procedure prescribed by law. The procedure to be followed for acquisition of land under section 14(1) having been incorporated in the said provision itself and it apparently discloses certain pre-requisites for exercise of such power by the State Government, it is needless to say that the acquisition of land under section 14(1) has to be in due compliance of such procedure, otherwise, the decision and consequently the acquisition would stand vitiated. Undoubtedly, the respondents have not complied with the requirement of section 5 of the said Act. 11. The learned Advocate for the respondents, however, has sought to contend that the provisions of section 5 or 11 of the said Act are not applicable in view of the introduction of section 3-D in the said Act, and consequently the provisions of section 5 and the provision regarding the requirement of representation by the competent authority referred to in section 14(1) stands omitted. 12. Section 3-D provides that on publication of the slum rehabilitation scheme under sub-section (1) of section 3-B, the provisions of other Chapters of the said Act shall apply to any area declared as the slum rehabilitation area, subject to certain modifications and they include omission of Chapters II and III as well as section 11 from Chapter IV and the portion beginning with the words "Where on any representation" and ending with the words "clearance area" in section 14 of the said Act. Undoubtedly, therefore, on publication of the slum rehabilitation scheme under sub-section (1) of section 3-B, the provisions specified above would not apply to any area which is so declared as the slum rehabilitation area. 13. Undoubtedly, therefore, on publication of the slum rehabilitation scheme under sub-section (1) of section 3-B, the provisions specified above would not apply to any area which is so declared as the slum rehabilitation area. 13. Section 2(h-b) defines the expression "Slum Rehabilitation Area" to mean a slum rehabilitation area, declared as such under sub-section (1) of section 3-C in pursuance of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme notified under section 3-B. Section 3-C(1) provides that as soon as may be, after the publication of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Chief Executive Officer on being satisfied that circumstances in respect of any area, justifying its declaration as slum rehabilitation area under the said scheme, may by an order published in the Official Gazette, declare such area to be a "slum rehabilitation area". The order declaring slum rehabilitation area is required to be given wide publicity in such manner as may be specified by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Under sub-section (2) of section 3-C any person aggrieved by such declaration of an area to be the slum rehabilitation area, may within four weeks from the publication of such order prefer an appeal to the Special Tribunal. Being so, the question of non-applicability of the provisions of Chapters II, III and section 11 of Chapter IV and Part of section 14 of the said Act consequent to the publication of the slum rehabilitation scheme under sub-section (1) of section 3-B could arise only in relation to the area which is declared as the slum rehabilitation area in terms of section 3-C(1) of the said Act, and not in relation to any other area. The contention that merely on publication of the slum rehabilitation scheme under section 3-B(1), the said provision of law would cease to apply to an area where such scheme is sought to be implemented is devoid of substance. In fact the contention in that regard is contrary to the very definition Clause 2(h-b) which defines the expression "a slum rehabilitation area". It clearly specifies that the declaration in that regard under section 3-C has to be in pursuance of the notification regarding Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under section 3-B of the said Act. Hence, no area can be said to be a slum rehabilitation area unless it is so declared under section 3-C(1) of the said Act. It clearly specifies that the declaration in that regard under section 3-C has to be in pursuance of the notification regarding Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under section 3-B of the said Act. Hence, no area can be said to be a slum rehabilitation area unless it is so declared under section 3-C(1) of the said Act. It is not mere implementation of the scheme drawn and published under section 3-B in an area that would automatically transform such area into a slum rehabilitation area under the said Act. Admittedly, there is no declaration under section 3-C in respect of the area in question to be a slum rehabilitation area. 14. It is then sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents that considering the provisions of Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 9th April, 1998, any area declared as the slum under the said Act could be treated as the slum rehabilitation area under the said Act, and, therefore, it is not necessary for the Chief Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to specifically declare any area as slum rehabilitation area under section 3-C. Reference is also made to Clause II of Development Control Regulation No. 33(10) issued under Planning Act, contending that Clause (i) of the said Regulations is a deeming provision under which any area which fulfills the conditions laid down under section 4 of the said Act to qualify as slum area can be treated as slum rehabilitation area, and in relation to such area, the provisions of section 3-B would apply, and considering the same, no fault can be found with the notification and in that regard, reliance is placed in the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Pooja Enterprises another v. C.E.O., S.R.A., Mhada, Mumbai and others (supra). 15. As regards the Government Resolution dated 9th April, 1998 is concerned, undoubtedly, the same was issued in terms of section 3-B(1) of the said Act. Section 2(h-d) defines the expression "Slum Rehabilitation Scheme" to mean the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme notified under section 3-B of the said Act. Sub-section (1) of section 3-B provides that the State Government or Slum Rehabilitation Authority with the previous sanction of the State Government, shall, prepare a general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for the areas specified under sub-section (1) of section 3-A, for Rehabilitation of slums and hutment colonies in such areas. Sub-section (1) of section 3-B provides that the State Government or Slum Rehabilitation Authority with the previous sanction of the State Government, shall, prepare a general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for the areas specified under sub-section (1) of section 3-A, for Rehabilitation of slums and hutment colonies in such areas. In terms of sub-section (2) thereof, such scheme is required to be published in the Official Gazette. In terms of sub-section (3) thereof, the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority is required to consider objections and suggestions in relation to the said scheme. Sub-section (4) of section 3-B provides that the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme so notified should generally lay down the parameters for declaration of any area as the slum rehabilitation area and indicate the manner in which rehabilitation of the area declared as the slum rehabilitation area should be carried out. It further provides that the scheme shall provide for the matters like parameters and guidelines for declaration of an area as the slum rehabilitation area, basic and essential parameters of development of slum rehabilitation area under such scheme, provisions for obligatory participation of the landholders and occupants of the area declared as the slum rehabilitation area under the slum rehabilitation scheme in the implementation of the scheme, the provision relating to the transit accommodation pending development of the slum rehabilitation area and allotment of tenements on development to the occupants of such area, free of cost, the scheme for development of the slum rehabilitation areas under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by the landholders and occupants by themselves or through a developer and the terms and conditions of such development, and the option available to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for taking up such development in the event of non-participation of the landholders or occupants, provision regarding sanction of Floor Space Index and transfer of development rights, if any, to be made available to the developer for development of the slum rehabilitation area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, and provision regarding non-transferable nature of tenements for a certain period, etc. In short, the powers to issue a Notification under section 3-B relates to the one relating to formulation of the general scheme for rehabilitation in relation to a slum area. In short, the powers to issue a Notification under section 3-B relates to the one relating to formulation of the general scheme for rehabilitation in relation to a slum area. It is after the publication of such scheme under section 3-B, that an area which would require and justify its rehabilitation under such scheme, that could be declared as "the slum rehabilitation area" in exercise of powers under section 3-C(1). In other words, section 3-B empowers formulation of general scheme for rehabilitation of slum areas. It does not provide for the power to declare any specific area to be slum rehabilitation area and the power in that regard is the subject-matter of the provision of law comprised under section 3-C of the said Act. It is, therefore, clear that mere declaration of a general scheme for rehabilitation of slum areas under section 3-B ipso facto would not amount to declaration of any specific area as the slum rehabilitation area, and for the same reason, slum rehabilitation scheme declared under section 3-B cannot be made applicable to an area in the absence of compliance of the provisions of section 3-C(1) of the said Act to such area. At the same time, mere publication of general scheme of rehabilitation would not bring any area within the scope of section 3-D. For the purpose of applicability of section 3-D, it would be necessary for the concerned authority to declare the area to be slum rehabilitation area under section 3-C(1) of the said Act. In the absence of compliance of the provision under section 3-C(1), question of applicability of section 3-D does not arise. Undisputedly, the respondents have not issued any declaration under section 3-C in respect of the area in question, and the same has not been declared as the slum rehabilitation area under section 3-C of the said Act. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents that the Government Resolutions dated 9th April, 1998 by itself would exclude the applicability of the provisions of part of section 14 alongwith section 5 of the said Act or that the provisions of section 3-D would apply to the matter in hand is therefore totally devoid of substance. 15. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents that the Government Resolutions dated 9th April, 1998 by itself would exclude the applicability of the provisions of part of section 14 alongwith section 5 of the said Act or that the provisions of section 3-D would apply to the matter in hand is therefore totally devoid of substance. 15. The learned Advocate for the respondents, however, persistently contend that the provisions of Clause 3(3) of the said Government Resolution are themselves sufficient to warrant applicability of section 3-D. The said Clause 3(3) provides that if any area fulfills the conditions laid down in section 4 of the said Act to qualify as the slum area or for the purpose of implementation of slum rehabilitation area any other area is declared as slum rehabilitation area then such area could be treated as slum rehabilitation area. In other words, only the area which is qualified to be declared as slum area under section 4 of the said Act or any other area in which implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme is necessary then such area can be treated as slum rehabilitation area. This merely lays down the guideline for identifying any area for the purpose of declaration of the same as the slum rehabilitation area and by itself does not declare any area to be a slum rehabilitation area. It is to be noted that the Government Resolution dated 9th April, 1998 is a Notification issued in relation to the general scheme for rehabilitation of the slum areas and by itself does not declare any area as slum rehabilitation area. In fact, all sub-clauses under Clause 3 of the Government Resolution lay down the guidelines which can be the basis for identifying an area wherein rehabilitation scheme can be implemented and by themselves they do not declare any area to be a slum rehabilitation area. Indeed, under no circumstances, Clause 3 of the Government Resolution dated 9th April, 1998 can be said to be declaration of any area as slum rehabilitation area as the said notification has been issued under section 3-B(3). A notification issued under a provision in a statute or in exercise of powers under a provision of law in a statute, cannot travel beyond the scope of powers given to the authority to issue such notification. Section 3-B is confined to formulation of general scheme for rehabilitation of slum area. A notification issued under a provision in a statute or in exercise of powers under a provision of law in a statute, cannot travel beyond the scope of powers given to the authority to issue such notification. Section 3-B is confined to formulation of general scheme for rehabilitation of slum area. The said Act specifically requires a separate notification under section 3-C for the purpose of declaration of an area as the slum rehabilitation area. When the law provides a particular mode for a particular thing to be done, the said mode has to be adhered to. This being a well settled principles of law, the Government Resolution in relation to the Notification under section 3-C which pertains to the formulation of the general rehabilitation scheme can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a declaration in relation to any specific area as the slum rehabilitation area or any area which may deserve implementation of such scheme. The Government Resolution dated 9th April, 1998, therefore, merely lays down the criteria for identifying an area which may require implementation of rehabilitation scheme, but that by itself did not declare any area to be a slum rehabilitation area under the said Act. 17. The reference to the Development Control Regulation No. 33(10) is also of no help for the respondents to justify action under section 14(1) without compliance of section 5 of the said Act. Clause II(i) of the said Regulation provides that slums shall mean those censused, or declared and notified, in the past or hereafter under the said Act and slums shall also mean areas/pavement stretches hereafter notified as Slum Rehabilitation Areas. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause II provides that if any area fulfills the conditions laid down in section 4 of the said Act to qualify as slum area and has been censused or declared and notified shall be deemed to be and treated as Slum Rehabilitation Areas. Referring to these provisions, it was sought to be contended that the same clearly provides as to which areas can be treated as slum rehabilitation area, and, that therefore, they are deeming provisions in relation to the area to be construed as the slum rehabilitation area. At the outset, it is to be noted that the Development Control Regulation No. 33(10) is issued under the Planning Act and not under the said Act. At the outset, it is to be noted that the Development Control Regulation No. 33(10) is issued under the Planning Act and not under the said Act. The provisions of law contained in the said Act cannot be construed by referring to the regulations issued under totally the different Act. Secondly, the provisions of Clause II are not deeming provisions relating to the slum rehabilitation areas but they merely provide for areas which can be treated as the slum rehabilitation areas. The sub-clause (i) of Clause II clearly provides that those provisions are for the purpose specified in Clause I which precedes Clause II. In fact, sub-clause (i) of Clause II begins with the expression "For this purpose, ..............................................." which clearly signifies that whatever has been stated subsequent to the said expression "For this purpose" is for the purpose specified in the preceding paragraph. The paragraph preceding the sub-clause (i) of Clause II relates to the eligibility for rehabilitation under the scheme. It does not relate to any area to be considered as the slum rehabilitation area within the meaning of the said expression under the said Act. Sub-clause (a) of Clause I thereunder provides that "for redevelopment of slums including pavements, whose inhabitants names and structures appear in the electoral roll prepared with reference to 1st January, 1995 or a date prior thereto, but where the inhabitants stay at present in the structure, the provisions of Appendix IV shall apply on the basis of a tenement in exchange for an independently numbered structure." Sub-clause (b) thereof provides that "Subject to the foregoing provisions, only the actual occupants of the hutments, shall be held eligible, and the so called structure owner other than the actual occupant if any, even if his name is shown in the electoral roll for the structure, shall have no right whatsoever to the reconstructed tenement against that structure." In other words, sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause I relate to the eligibility of the persons for the new tenements in exchange of the old tenements, and for that purpose, which areas can be identified for the purposes of the slum rehabilitation have been specified in Clause II. That by itself does not amount to say that any such area is declared as or is deemed to be the slum rehabilitation area within the meaning of the said Act. That by itself does not amount to say that any such area is declared as or is deemed to be the slum rehabilitation area within the meaning of the said Act. Being so, even on mere applicability of the Government Resolution dated 9th April, 1998, it would not ipso facto transform an area already declared as a slum area under the said Act into a slum rehabilitation area, in the absence of proper declaration under section 3-C(1) of the said Act. These Regulations cannot stand on higher pedestal than that of Government Resolution dated 9th April, 1998. 18. The decision of the learned Single Judge in Pooja Enterprises, in fact, is of no help in the matter in hand. In that case, the point which was sought to be raised was that mere publication of general rehabilitation scheme was not sufficient and apart from the general scheme drawn for slum rehabilitation under section 3-B, there would be necessity for a special scheme for a slum rehabilitation area. It was held therein that since the authorities empowered to exercise the powers under section 3-B are different from those entitled to exercise the powers under section 3-C and the general scheme in question having been drawn by the slum rehabilitation authority under section 3-B and as the appeal by Pooja Enterprises was filed under section 3-C(2) which can be filed only in relation to the order passed by the authority competent under section 3-C(1) and such authority being different from one exercising the powers under section 3-B, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under section 3-C(2) in relation to the general scheme drawn under section 3-B(iii). The ratio of the said decision being as stated above, the same has no application to the matter in hand. 19. It is to be noted that the authority who exercises the powers under section 3-B as well as 3-C is one and the same. Undoubtedly, prior to 1997 and before enforcement of Maharashtra Act No. 6 of 1997, the authority exercising powers under section 3-C was the competent authority, whereas, in view of enforcement of Maharashtra Act No. 6 of 1997, it is the Chief Executive Officer, who is empowered to exercise the powers under section 3-C(1) of the said Act. Undoubtedly, prior to 1997 and before enforcement of Maharashtra Act No. 6 of 1997, the authority exercising powers under section 3-C was the competent authority, whereas, in view of enforcement of Maharashtra Act No. 6 of 1997, it is the Chief Executive Officer, who is empowered to exercise the powers under section 3-C(1) of the said Act. The Chief Executive Officer, as defined under section 2(ba) of the said Act, as being the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority appointed under sub-section (2) of section 3-A. Apparently the Chief Executive Officer is the officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and being so, the authority for formulation of the general rehabilitation scheme under section 3-B and for the purpose of the declaration of the area as slum rehabilitation area under section 3-C happens to be one and the same. The decision in Pooja Enterprises had proceeded on the basis that the authority in relation to the declaration under section 3-B is different from one under section 3-C. The said decision also on that count is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In other words, the contentions based either upon Government Resolution dated 9th April, 1998 and/or the Development Control Regulation No. 33(10) regarding the applicability of section 3-D to the matter in hand are devoid of substance. 20. The points for determination formulated above accordingly stand answered in negative. 21. It is also sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that the gap of five years between the issuance of show cause notice under section 14(1) and the decision for issuance of Notification under section 14(1) for acquisition of land would also vitiate the acquisition. For the reasons stated above, it is already clear that the decision under section 14(1) being bad in law for non-compliance of section 5 and in the absence of representation by the competent authority as also the contention about the applicability of section 3-D being rejected, it is not necessary to deal with this issue in this matter. 22. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and the impugned decision and the notification dated 30th May, 2003 issued under section 14(1) of the said Act are liable to be quashed and are accordingly hereby quashed and set aside. 23. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----