[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5019 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 5019 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 5019 OF 2007 Chandrakant Yeshwant Jadhav ... Petitioner. vS. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. S.M.Kamble for the petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : February 12, 2008. : February 12, 2008. : February 12, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed impugning the order dated 12.12.2006 passed under the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvements Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, whereby the Misc. Application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal challenging the Notification dated 30-12-1989 declaring the property in question as slum, was dismissed. [2] 3. The Petitioner claims to be landlord / owner of the property in question which is declared as slum vide Notification dated 30-12-1989, wherein a Slum Redevelopment Scheme is underway. 4. I have perused the impugned order. The learned Presiding Officer in paragraph No. 8 of the impugned order has discussed as to why he has disbelieved the petitioner. He has observed that the LOI was issued sometime in July, 2003 and the commencement certificate was issued on 24.2.2004 and construction of the rehab building of seven storeys having two wings viz "A" and "B", consisting of 8 flats on each floor has been completed and the occupation certificate for the same has been granted on 25.2.2006. It is further observed in the impugned order that the petitioner was included in the list of eligible occupants in the Annexure II Certificate issued by the Additional Collector (Encroachment), Western Suburb, in December, 2002 and the petitioner and his brother have been allotted Flat No. 211 and 212 in rehab building. 5. It is further observed in the impugned order that it is highly improbable that a seven storey building was constructed on the property and the appellant, was not aware and ignorant about the same [3] and obtained the knowledge of SRA scheme only in July, 2006 as pleaded in his application and as no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in the application was made out for filing the Appeal, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. I am in agreement with the reasons given by the Trial Court for not condoning the delay Application of the petitioner. The petitioner has come with a false case to explain the delay of about 17 years in filing the Appeal under Section 4(3) of the Maharashtra Slum Area Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment Act, 1971. 6. Under the circumstances, having perused the material on record including the impugned order, I am satisfied that there is no merit in the above petition and no case for interference has been made out so as to set aside the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 7. Consequently the petition is dismissed. ..... [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]