The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party who has accepted and acted on a declaration of a property as a slum area cannot later challenge it. Additionally, the court emphasized that the delay in filing an appeal must be justified, and interference with such declarations by the tribunal should be based on valid legal grounds.

S.C.Gupte, J.

This writ petition challenges an order passed by Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R.) Tribunal, Mumbai (‘Slum Tribunal’). The impugned order has beem passed by the Slum Tribunal in an appeal under Section 4(3) of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ('Slum Act'). This appeal had challenged a notification issued by Competent Authority under the Slum Act under Section 4(1) of that Act declaring the suit property as a slum area. The declaration was made by publication in an official Gazette as far back as on 2 November 1978. The appeal was filed by Respondent No.3 sometime in August 2008.

2. The case of Respondent No.3 in her appeal was that she was the owner of the property, bearing Final Plot No.559 of TPS IV, Mahim Division, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar, Mumbai, falling under G/North ward of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai admeasuring 4037 square metres ('suit property'). The suit property, prior to its purchase by Respondent No.3, was declared as a slum vide order No.DC/CA/Dholkwalachawl/78 dated 21 October 1978 by issuing a Gazette notification under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act. In 1983, the property was proposed to be reserved for recreation ground under a draft development plan for the city of Mumbai. In 1992, when the final development plan was approved, the reservation came to be confirmed. In or about December 1993, the suit property was purportedly purchased by a firm known as "Roshan Estates". Respondent No.3 claims to have purchased this property from this firm sometime in January 1996. Around that time, there was a scheme proposed for redevelopment of the suit property under the Slum Act. Annexure-II was purportedly issued by the competent authority under the Slum Act certifying 241 protected structures forming part of the suit property out of 292 structures then existing in the property. After her purchase of the suit property, Respondent No.3 submitted a proposal for slum development on a combined piece or parcel of land comprising of the suit property and a part of its adjoining plot, bearing Final Plot No.569. Respondent No.3 paid LOI scrutiny fee and prosecuted her proposal before the competent authority. The competent authority refused to sanction the joint proposal in respect of the suit property and Final Plot No.569 in favour of Respondent No.3. (Around the same time, a separate proposal was filed by occupants of Final Plot No.569 for slum redevelopment through a society formed by them.) The competent authority's order was challenged by Respondent No.3 in a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.2849 of 2006. By its order dated 28 November 2006, a Division Bench of this court rejected that writ petition. The Division Bench held that there was no reason why the slum dwellers of Final Plot No.569 should not be allowed to proceed with their own SRA scheme. The court, after taking into account the concept of an SRA scheme, which was for rehabilitation of slum dwellers, held that it was immaterial which developer executed the scheme or put up the construction; the court was not concerned with proxy battles played before the court by builders proposing to execute SRA schemes. The Division Bench order was carried by Respondent No.3 before the Supreme Court in a special leave petition, being SLP (Civil) No.3166/2017. After leave under Article 136, the SLP was converted into a civil appeal. By its order dated 19 December 2008, the Supreme Court agreed with the judgment of the Division Bench albeit for different reasons and dismissed the civil appeal. It appears that just before the civil appeal was dismissed, sometime in or about August 2008, Respondent No.3 filed the present appeal before the Slum Tribunal seeking to challenge the declaration of the suit property as a slum under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act. The delay of about 30 years was condoned by the Slum Tribunal. (It is the case of the Petitioners in the present petition that there was no notic