JUDGMENT : Kamal Khata, J. 1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the Petitioners seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the Notices dated 22nd October, 2024 and 11th November, 2024. Additionally, they seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to forthwith release the seized cattle of Petitioners. 2) The Petitioners are in the business of running stables since the past several decades from the property admeasuring 2860 sq. ft. and 1333 sq. ft. bearing CTS Nos. 1165 of village Versova, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban district. The Petitioner’s have approached the Court being aggrieved by the action of Respondent No.1-Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), who seized the cattle from the Petitioner’s stable on 28 th November 2024 amidst heavy deployment of Police Force with BMC officers of the K/West Ward. 3) Adv. Dhananjay Singh for Petitioners submitted that, the Petitioners and their families have been in occupation of the land and structures prior to 1961. They have been paying Municipal taxes as well as electricity charges payable to the concerned Departments. They also claim to have a Ration Card in their names which prove their existence on this land. 3.1) Mr. Singh submitted that, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the Notices which seek to forcibly evict and relocate their cattle beyond the Mumbai City and Mumbai suburban district within 15 days. He asserts that the Respondent-BMC has failed to consider the report dated 4th March 2021, issued by the Commissioner Dairy Development Maharashtra Government, pursuant to the directions of this Court by its Order dated 30th January, 2020 in various Writ Petitions. He contends that, there were guidelines for relocation of the cattle to the alternate site at Dapchari, District Palghar, which was to be done in a phased manner. He asserts that, there is no infrastructure at Dapchari making it impossible for the Petitioners to relocate. He submits that, there are around 300 cattle sheds, but only a few are being targeted for removal from the City. He accordingly submits that, the notices ought to be quashed and set aside and the Petition be made absolute as prayed. 4) Mr. He submits that, there are around 300 cattle sheds, but only a few are being targeted for removal from the City. He accordingly submits that, the notices ought to be quashed and set aside and the Petition be made absolute as prayed. 4) Mr. Godbole representing Respondent No.1-BMC submitted that, as per the directives of the State Government in respect of the resettlement of cattle, a notification dated 1st July, 2006 was issued, whereby the areas of Mumbai and Suburban districts being urban areas were declared as prohibited for keeping and movement of cattle in urban areas. He asserted that as per Section 41A of Maharashtra Keeping and Movement of Cattle in Urban Areas (Control) Act , 1976 a householder was entitled to keep not more than 3 heads of cattle and would be granted a ‘Class A’ license for the same. Therefore, the business activity of the Petitioners is per se illegal. He contended that, the BMC had stopped renewing license to the cattle shed owners since 2006 as per Circular No. HO35334/4R dated 30th November 2006. However, the area of Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon was excluded by a subsequent notification dated 11th August 2009, from the purview of the earlier notification of the State Government. Furthermore, the Supreme Court by its Order dated 16th April, 2021 had held that Order of status quo granted by the High Court was brought to an end and there were no restrictions operating against the State Authorities to take action as per law thus upholding the Order and Judgment of this Court dated 30 th January, 2020. 4.1) Mr. Godbole emphasized that, the Petitioners were not the only ones who were issued Notices. The contention that they were targeted is baseless. He stated that out of 274 stable owners in Mumbai suburbs, 195 were issued notices by the Assistant Commissioners of their respective wards. Mr. Godbole also relied upon a chart showing the actions taken against those stable owners pursuant to the Notices. 4.2) Mr. Godbole submitted that, the animals that were seized were handed over to a cattle pound where they are being looked after. There was however, an unfortunate incident of a bull's death during the period that the cattle were impounded. The report of the autopsy carried out dated 9th January, 2025 revealed that, it was a natural death caused on account of cardiac respiratory failure. There was however, an unfortunate incident of a bull's death during the period that the cattle were impounded. The report of the autopsy carried out dated 9th January, 2025 revealed that, it was a natural death caused on account of cardiac respiratory failure. He submitted that, the Petitioners are free to take away their cattle and the BMC should be discharged of their responsibility for maintaining these cattle. Relying on the Affidavit of the BMC’s Municipal Commissioner he submitted that, the cattle owner would have to approach their jurisdictional Magistrate at Ville Parle to take back their seized cattle as only the Magistrates were empowered to release them as per Section 441-G of the MMC Act 1888. 5) Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior counsel appeared for the Intervenor, an owner cum developer. appointed by Authorities under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. He argued that the Applicants are the owners of the immovable property bearing CTS Nos. 1165, 1166, 1166/1-4, 1167, 1168, 1168/1-11, 1169, 1169/1-5, 1170, 1170/1-11, 1171, 1172, 1172/1-4 known as Ramdas Nagar, Joseph Patel Vadi, SRA situated at Mauje Versova, District Andheri, Mumbai. They as owners cum developers are implementing a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme that is approved by the SRA. 5.1) He argued that, the Petitioners have suppressed material facts from this Court. The Petitioners have failed to bring to the notice of this Court that there was an Order of eviction against the Petitioner passed by the CEO SRA and subsequently, the AGRC who also had heard the matter has closed the matter for Orders. 5.2) He asserted that, a Letter of Intent (‘LoI’) was issued on 30th March, 2022 and an Intimation of Approval (‘IoA’) was granted on 31st March 2022. They have also obtained a Commencement Certificate under regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Promotion Regulation 2034 (‘DCPR’) on 24th August 2023. He contends that, an Annexure-II was prepared and it discloses that out of the 426 structures on the property 403 have been declared eligible. There is also one temple and the balance structures’ eligibility is yet to be decided but they were demolished and there Appeals a pending before the AGRC. 5.3) Mr. Chinoy submitted that, the Petitioners were the non-cooperating members of this Scheme. By an order dated 15th April 2024, the Deputy Collector had directed the Petitioners to vacate their 11 structures, being ineligible within 30 days. 5.3) Mr. Chinoy submitted that, the Petitioners were the non-cooperating members of this Scheme. By an order dated 15th April 2024, the Deputy Collector had directed the Petitioners to vacate their 11 structures, being ineligible within 30 days. Out of the 11 structures, 5 structures occupied by the Petitioners consisted of a tabela (stable), two structures were being used for residential purposes and two structures for storage of fodder and as godowns. The 6 other structures were occupied by the wife of the Petitioner and that too consisted of a tabela. Four structures were being used for residential purpose and one was being used for storage of fodder and as godown. He submitted that Writ Petitions were filed by these Petitioners and by an Order dated 1st July 2024, this Court had directed the Petitioners to apply to AGRC for interim relief. 5.4) Mr. Chinoy contended that, presently 414 structures are already demolished and more than 1000 persons are out of their respective tenements. The delay of the implementation of the SRA scheme at the instance of the Petitioners was causing prejudice not only to the owners but also the other occupants who have moved out of their tenements. He submits that the owners are incurring an expense of Rs.75 lakhs every month towards transit rent. 5.5) Upon instructions from his clients, Mr. Chinoy submitted that they are willing to shift the Petitioners at one M/s. Shahid Dairy Farms, Vasai, Palghar, i.e. outside the prescribed limits but closer to Mumbai than Dapchari, offered by the State. It has all amenities like storing for fodder for cattle, rooms for the workers etc. and is conducive for running the business of dairy farming. He submitted that it also has electricity connection and a well for drawing water for the purposes of running the dairy business. He submitted that this stable can accommodate 150 cattle. They were agreeable to bear the license fee of Rs.50,000/- per month for the Petitioners and were also willing to make some changes if required in the tabela and make it habitable at their costs so as not to cause any inconvenience to the Petitioners. This facility they were willing to extend for a period of one year instead of three months as directed by the CEO SRA by its Orders. This facility they were willing to extend for a period of one year instead of three months as directed by the CEO SRA by its Orders. He submitted that, they were open to an amicable settlement but the Petitioners were demanding exorbitant amounts to vacate, holding them to ransom. The delay in implementation of SRA scheme would severely prejudice and make the entire project unviable. He thus submitted that the Petition be dismissed. 6) We have heard all counsel and perused all the documents on record. 7) We find that the Petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts. 7.1) Upon our inquiry as to whether the Petitioners claimed ownership rights by adverse possession Mr. Singh, for the Petitioners remained silent. In our view therefore, they are illegal squatters on the Applicant’s lands since prior to 1960. The documents such as assessments bills or tax paid by the Petitioners, electricity bills, Ration Card, and other such ancillary documents relied upon by the Petitioners do not give them any title to the lands occupied by them. These are the kind of slum colonies in Bombay who have their origin in acts of trespass and the private citizens suffering could do little to get even with the wrong doers that were referred to by our Court in the case of Reverend Father, Peter Paul Fernandes, Parish Priest and Sole Trustee of the Church of St. Francis Xavier vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1991 Bom 445 . 7.2) The State has acknowledged them as tolerated structures. The Notices for removal of cattle stable from Mumbai city and suburban district at Dapchari are issued since the State has notified the Mumbai City upto Mahim Creek, Sion and the entire area of Mumbai suburban district as a prohibited area for keeping and movement of cattle. The Supreme Court by its Order dated 16th April, 2021 while dismissing the SLP No.2525/2526 of 2021 , has held that there are no restrictions preventing the State Authorities from taking action in accordance with law. The Supreme Court has directed the stable owners to avail of the alternate sites offered by the State Government at Dapchari or any other location. The Commissioner Dairy Development has directed the BMC to take strict actions against the tabela/stable owners who have still not shifted to Dapchari by his correspondence dated 19th March 2024. The Supreme Court has directed the stable owners to avail of the alternate sites offered by the State Government at Dapchari or any other location. The Commissioner Dairy Development has directed the BMC to take strict actions against the tabela/stable owners who have still not shifted to Dapchari by his correspondence dated 19th March 2024. 8) The contention of the Petitioners that, there are around 300 stables and only they were being targeted is entirely baseless. The Petitioners have suppressed that they are a part of the slum scheme. They have also suppressed that all the slums around them have been demolished and their occupants are out. On this ground alone, the Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, we have looked into the merits of the Petition and decided on it. 8.1) The Petitioners are a part of the slum scheme. They are found to be ineligible. They therefore are required to be removed. Upon inquiry with Mr. Singh we found that, the Petitioners were not members of the Bombay Milk Producers Association. They have neither been parties to the group of Writ Petitions filed in the Bombay High Court nor were they parties to the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Singh that, the directions passed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court were not binding on the Petitioners since they were not parties. The Petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate i.e. they cannot choose to take benefits of the Orders and directions passed by this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court to submit that they would only shift to Dapchari if the State provides all infrastructural facilities as contemplated and at the same time refuse to accept a slum scheme which is being implemented by its owner. 9) We find that these actions of the Petitioners in not cooperating with the owners or the State in its development is nothing else but a very adamant attitude. It leads us to believe that, it is nothing else but a case of sophisticated manner of extortion as the Petitioner knows fully well that, the developer is incurring huge financial outflow every month which at some point if delayed further would cause huge losses and eventually make the project unviable. It leads us to believe that, it is nothing else but a case of sophisticated manner of extortion as the Petitioner knows fully well that, the developer is incurring huge financial outflow every month which at some point if delayed further would cause huge losses and eventually make the project unviable. It could also lead to the termination of the development right under section 13(2) of the Slums Act. Thus whereas there would be severe prejudice being caused to the Owner-Developer, there would be no loss caused to the persons like the Petitioners who are actually rank trespassers on the property. It is seen in many cases as well as the present one that, the individuals such as the Petitioners feel that if they are the last to move out of the project, they would be entitled to extract more benefits from the developers and enrich themselves handsomely. 10) We agree with Mr. Khandeparkar that such persons are not entitled to any benefits under Section 33(10)(VI)1.16 of the DCPR 2034 as well as the Section 33A(f) of the Slum Act. That, such persons do not deserve any sympathy, nor do they deserve any additional compensation. An individual who is a rank trespasser and has usurped properties of an owner cannot be seen to be dictating terms to the owner or the developer to take up a scheme as per his choice. The Petitioners’ contention that the developer ought to have developed the scheme under 33(14) is therefore rejected. It is entirely the prerogative of the owner/developer to develop as per the slum scheme that would be most beneficial to him and/or to the slum dwellers. A beneficiary to the Slum Scheme would have no choice in the matter. We find that by filing the Petition, the Petitioners have already caused a considerable delay in implementation of the Slum Scheme. Most of the slum occupants are out of their homes since November-2024 as stated by Mr. Khandeparkar. The Petitioners have been clearly non- cooperative as can be observed from the pleadings and the reports as well as the Orders of the SRA. 11) After perusing entire record, we are of the considered view that, the impugned Notice is in accordance with law and there is no illegality in it. Khandeparkar. The Petitioners have been clearly non- cooperative as can be observed from the pleadings and the reports as well as the Orders of the SRA. 11) After perusing entire record, we are of the considered view that, the impugned Notice is in accordance with law and there is no illegality in it. 12) In the circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that, the Petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs of not less than Rs.5,00,000/-. However, at the sincere request of Mr. Singh, we refrain ourselves from imposing it. 13) Petition is accordingly dismissed. 14) In view of the dismissal of the Petition, Interim Applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed off.