ssp 1 WP 538 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.538 OF 2011 Anil Maneklal Mehta .....Petitioner versus Madhubhai Thakkar and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.H.S.Anand i/by Ms.Sarita Donde, for the petitioner in WP No.2193 of 2010 and for the respondent No.1 in WP No.538 of 2011. Mr.Mahendra Ghelani with Mr.Hiren Mehta, Mr.Asif Khatri, Mr.Parikashit Desai, for the petitioner in WP No.538 of 2011 and for respondent Nos.3 and 4 in WP No.2193 of 2011. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, for the respondent – SRA in WP No.2193 of 2011. Mr.G.D.Utangale, for the SRA in WP No.538 of 2011. Mr.P.G.Lad, AGP, for the respondent State in WP No.2193 of 2010. Ms.Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP, for the State in WP No.538 of 2011. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 30 th AUGUST, 2011 P.C. 1. The above petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 12-07-2010 passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C.& R) Tribunal, Mumbai, established under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, in Appeal No.12 of 2010. The property involved in the said appeal is restricted to CTS No.501E/1 Part, admeasuring 4448.125 sq.mtrs., Sant N.M.Marg, New Maneklal Estate, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai. The said appeal has been filed by the ssp 2 WP 538 of 2011 respondent No.1 herein against the Notification dated 06-02-1997, which is in the nature of Corrigendum, increasing the original area of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme from 4411 sq.mtrs to 9022.6 sq.mtrs. The said order passed by the Tribunal is principally challenged on the ground that the Appeal is not maintainable, on the ground of limitation, as it has been filed much beyond the statutory period prescribed under the said Act and almost after a period of 14 years having elapsed from the issuance of the said Notification. It appears that the petitioner herein sought to intervene in the Appeal by filing an intervention application, but the said application, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was not taken on record and an interim order of status quo has been passed by the Tribunal without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner has also not been heard in the application for condonation of delay. 2. It is required to be noted that the petitioner has implemented the slum redevelopment scheme in question on the plots of land which are covered by the earlier Notification dated 21-04-1983, which has been amended by the Corrigendum Notification dated 06-02-1997, pursuant to the LOI granted in it’s favour. We are informed at the Bar that in so far as the plots wherein the slum dwellers are to be rehabilitated, the said part of the development has already been completed and the slum dwellers have also been rehabilitated in a cluster building ssp 3 WP 538 of 2011 having four wings and the possession has been given to 265 slum dwellers, some in the year 2005 and some in the year 2008. 3. In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove, in our view, it would be just and proper to direct the Slum Tribunal to decide the Appeal filed by the respondent No.1 herein, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the said appeal. Hence, the following directions. (i) The order condoning the delay in filing the Appeal is set aside and the matter is relegated back to the Slum Tribunal for de novo consideration of the said application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal is directed to hear the petitioner herein, in respect of the application for condonation of delay. This is on the basis that the petitioner herein would file an application for intervention in the said appeal. If such an application is filed, the Slum Tribunal would allow the same and would permit the intervention of the petitioner. (ii) The Slum Tribunal to decide the said application for condonation of delay on its own merits and in accordance with law and citing reasons for either condoning the delay or for rejecting the said application. The Tribunal would be well advised to consider the facts as stated above. (iii) The Tribunal to take up hearing of the said application for ssp 4 WP 538 of 2011 condonation of delay on 14-09-2011 and the parties to appear before the Tribunal on the same date. (iv) The learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that application for condonation of delay, that is filed before the Tribunal, would be served upon the petitioner as well as the Advocate for the petitioner latest by 05-09-2011. The petitioner to tender his reply to the said application on 14-09-2011, when parties are to appear before the Tribunal. The said reply to be served on the respondent No.4 by 12-09-2011. The Tribunal thereafter to decide the said application for condonation of delay within a period of three weeks from 14-09-2011. The Slum Tribunal is also free to decide the main Appeal along with the application for condonation of delay if it so chooses. (v) The order of status quo granted in the Appeal is also vacated and the respondent No.1 would be free to file a fresh application for grant of stay and the said application for stay filed by the respondent No.1 would be heard de novo. (vi) Both the learned counsel make a statement that their clients would cooperate in the early disposal of the application for condonation of delay. In the event the appeal is heard separately, the same to be decided latest by 31-10-2011. However, as directed hereinabove, the application for condonation of delay would be tried at the first instance and thereafter, ssp 5 WP 538 of 2011 application for stay would be tried after application for condonation of delay. 4. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their own costs. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )