JUDGMENT Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. - Heard. 2. Rule. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. 4. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. By this petition, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging a Notification dated 8th July, 2019 bearing No. Bhusampa/2015/C.R.35/Zopani-1 as well as impugned letter dated 4th March, 2021 bearing reference No.1. 6. This litigation has a chequered history. However, bare necessary facts to decide the dispute may be noted as follows; Respondent No.1 by the impugned Notification dated 8th July, 2019 under section 14 (1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 (for short 'Slum Act') proposed to acquire a piece and parcel of land having Survey No.881, Mahim T.P.S. IV, Calcuttawala Chawl, S.K. Bole Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Dadar (West) Mumbai - 400 028 (for short 'Subject Property"). Respondent No.3 is the the Deputy Collector, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short 'S.R.A') who had issued the impugned communication dated 4th March, 2021 for determination of compensation. Respondent No.4 is the Chief Promoter of Heram C.H.S. (Proposed) which is a proposed society of slum dwellers on the subject property. 7. The petitioner has come up with a case that his father Arjansingh Javhermal Malkani purchased the subject property on 13th March, 1955. It was acquired by said Arjansingh Javhermal Malkani in a public auction held as per the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Accordingly, name of Arjansingh Javhermal Malkani was duly recorded in the land records. 8. Somewhere in the year 1963, approximately 723 square yards of the said subject property was acquired by Mumbai Municipal Corporation for the purpose of road widening. In all 21 tenements out of the original tenants were affected by the said reservation and subsequent to the said acquisition, became municipal tenants. Pursuant to the said acquisition, 11 tenants and a factory shed remained in Final Plot No.881 of Town Planning Scheme IV, Mahim Area. 9. On 18th June, 1979, the said Arjansingh Javhermal Malkani executed a power of attorney, duly notarized in favour of the petitioner, thereby authorizing him to be the lawful authority to do several acts with respect to the subject property. 10. Mr. 9. On 18th June, 1979, the said Arjansingh Javhermal Malkani executed a power of attorney, duly notarized in favour of the petitioner, thereby authorizing him to be the lawful authority to do several acts with respect to the subject property. 10. Mr. Arjansingh Javhermal Malkani executed a development agreement dated 23rd November, 1979 in favour of the petitioner, inter alia, authorizing him to develop, vacate, construct, alienate, transfer or sell or in any other way dispose of all interests and rights in the said subject property. It was done for a monetary consideration of Rs.6, 000/- per annum upto the lifetime of the said Arjansingh Javhermal Malkani payable in monthly 12 installments of Rs.500/-. Thus, the petitioner became a lawful owner of the said property. 11. In the year 2012, the petitioner was informed by pasting a notice upon the said property that a survey of the said property was to be conducted by the Deputy Collector on 8th November, 2012. Accordingly, a survey was conducted and the petitioner's statement was recorded. The petitioner came to know that certain unauthorized occupants had trespassed on the subject property. He, therefore, addressed a letter to Deputy Collector (S.R.A.) dated 12th December, 2012 making a reference of the aforesaid survey which was carried out stating therein that the subject property is occupied by illegal occupants and trespassers. The second survey was conducted on 11th April, 2013 by respondent No.2, of which a due notice was given to the petitioner who was present on the said date registering his objection to the said survey. 12. On 19th June, 2014, respondent No.2 issued a Public Notice in Free Press Journal regarding the subject property under section 14 (1) of the Slum Act. The Chief Executive Officer (for short 'C.E.O'), inter alia, sent a notice dated 21st June, 2014 to the petitioner informing him that the matter was kept on 24th June, 2014. On 28th October, 2014, the petitioner once again made a representation to respondent No.2 objecting the proposal of acquisition of the subject property by raising several grounds. The petitioner, inter alia, expressed his willingness to develop the said property in the capacity of it's owner. 13. On 28th October, 2014, the petitioner once again made a representation to respondent No.2 objecting the proposal of acquisition of the subject property by raising several grounds. The petitioner, inter alia, expressed his willingness to develop the said property in the capacity of it's owner. 13. Respondent No.2 thereafter issued impugned Notification dated 8 th July, 2019 under section 14 (1) Chapter V of the Slum Act in the Official Gazette, thereby stating that it has been decided that the State Government is going to acquire the subject property for implementation of the proposed Slum Scheme. 14. Meanwhile, Mr. Waman P. Hule and respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition No.1139 of 2020 seeking quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 8th July, 2019. In the said case, the petitioner had contended that the respondent, particularly Shri Om Siddhivinayak Sahakari Griha Nirman (Respondent No.5 herein) had certain unauthorized members and appointed M/s. Mighty Engineers (Respondent No.6) herein as Developers and Contractors to carry out re-development of the subject property. On 3rd November, 2020, liberty was granted to the petitioners to withdraw the petition and make a fresh representation to the C.E.O, S.R.A as regards the legality and validity of the proposal for redevelopment submitted by respondent No.5-Society. C.E.O, S.R.A was directed to dispose of the representation within a period of 8 weeks from such order. 15. In the meanwhile, by an order dated 8th September, 2020, Division Bench of this Court (Coram: S.C. Gupte & G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.) directed that no further steps with respect to the re-development of the subject property were to take place. 16. On 17th November, 2020, Mr. Waman P. Hule and respondent No.4 filed a representation before respondent No.2, inter alia, seeking rejection of the proposal submitted by respondent No.5 for appointment of respondent No.6 qua the subject property. However, respondent No.2 vide it's order dated 12th January, 2021, rejected the representation filed by Waman Hule and respondent No.4. On 4th March, 2021, respondent No.3 pasted a notice on the subject property as per section 17 of the said Act calling upon the petitioner for hearing on 12th March, 2021 to determine the compensation payable for acquisition of the subject property. 17. We have heard Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aradwad, learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3-S.R.A., Mr. Sanjeevkumar Deore, learned Counsel for respondent No.4, Mr. 17. We have heard Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aradwad, learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3-S.R.A., Mr. Sanjeevkumar Deore, learned Counsel for respondent No.4, Mr. Balsara, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and Ms. Shastri, learned A.G.P, for Respondent-State. 18. At the outset, Mr. Godbole has reiterated the grounds elaborated in the writ petition as regards right of the petitioner as an owner to re-develop and implement the slum rehabilitation scheme having his preferential right thereof. It is contended by Mr. Godbole that the petitioner indeed has a preferential right as an owner thereof to develop and implement S.R.A scheme which is a necessary ingredient of modified section 13 (1) of the Slum Act. The S.R.A Authority ought to have called upon the petitioner to submit the proposal for redevelopment. Merely because the petitioner failed to do so within a reasonable time, the Authorities could not have resorted to ignore the petitioner's right. He further submits that the respondents have not followed the longstanding procedure though it has been followed in many other similar cases. 19. According to Mr. Godbole, S.R.A Authority by it's letter dated 3rd March, 2015 informed the State Government that there was no objection in acquiring the subject property, inter alia, asking the State Government to consider the proposal of acquisition without any intimation to the petitioner. No reasonable opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to submit a proposal for redevelopment of the subject property before issuing the impugned Notification dated 8th July, 2019. He vehemently urged that the impugned Notification, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside being contrary to the settled principles of law and also without following the rules under D.C.R. Mr. Godbole took us through section 3 (C) 1 of the Slums Act. 20. Mr. He vehemently urged that the impugned Notification, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside being contrary to the settled principles of law and also without following the rules under D.C.R. Mr. Godbole took us through section 3 (C) 1 of the Slums Act. 20. Mr. Balsara, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5, however, demonstrated as to how the Petition needs to be dismissed not only on the ground of delay and latches as the petitioner has approached this Court in the month of May, 2021 for challenging the impugned Notification i.e nearly after two years, that too, without assigning any satisfactory reason but also on the ground that the process of acquisition has already been commenced pursuant to issuance of Notification under section 14 (1) of the Slums Act which has already been published in the Official Gazette and the subject land had already been acquired under the said Notification. The land has already been acquired by the State Government. Mr. Balsara has also raised several other grounds demonstrating as to how the petition needs to be thrown overboard at the threshold. 21. We have meticulously gone through the several correspondences and documents placed on record including the impugned Notification dated 8th July, 2019. Section 14 in Chapter V of the Slums Act reads thus; "14. Mr. Balsara has also raised several other grounds demonstrating as to how the petition needs to be thrown overboard at the threshold. 21. We have meticulously gone through the several correspondences and documents placed on record including the impugned Notification dated 8th July, 2019. Section 14 in Chapter V of the Slums Act reads thus; "14. Power of State Government to acquire land- (1)Where on any representation from the Competent Authority it appears to the State Government that, in order to enable the Authority [to execute any work of improvement or to redevelop any slum area or any structure in such area, it is necessary that such area, or any land] within adjoining or surrounded by any such area should be acquired the State Government may acquire the land by publishing in the Official Gazette, a notice to the effect that the State Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section: [ Provided that , before publishing such notice, the State Government, or as the case may be, the [Competent Authority] may call upon by notice the owner of, or any other person who, in its or his opinion may be interested in, such land to show cause in writing why the land should not be acquired with reasons therefor to the [Competent Authority] within the period specified in the notice; and the [Competent Authority] shall, with all reasonable despatch, forward any objections so submitted together with his report in respect thereof to the State Government and on considering the report and the objections, if any, the State Government may pass such order as it deems fit.] (1A) The acquisition of land for any purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a public purpose.] (2)When a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances". 22. A bare look at sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Slums Act makes it amply clear that once a land has been acquired by the State Government by publishing a Notification in the Official Gazette after calling upon the objections, if any, of the owners or other persons, the land in question from the date of publication of the notice absolutely vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. 23. 23. In the case at hand, the petitioner has impugned the Notification dated 8th July, 2019 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 14 (1) of the Slums Act, therefore, cannot be said to be maintainable in view of section 14 (2) of the Slums Act. The petitioner, at the most, may claim compensation under Section 17 of the Slum Act, that too, subject to proof of his ownership qua the subject property. 24. The petition also suffers from delay and latches, in the sense, even though law does not prescribe any definite period of limitation within which a petition under Article 226 may be filed by a citizen aggrieved by any action of the State Government or it's instrumentalities, yet extraordinary jurisdiction exercisable by this Court remains unaffected and untrammeled by law of limitation. It is a well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction vested in High Courts under Article 226 is discretionary in nature. The High Court may not exercise such discretionary jurisdiction just because it is lawful to do so. Here is the case where this Court would not exercise its discretion for grant of any relief for the reason that the Petition lacks due diligence as it has been well settled that the delay defeats equity. We find that the petitioner has approached this Court nearly after two years ever since the impugned Notification dated 8th July, 2019 came to be published for which he has not tendered any satisfactory explanation. The petition, therefore, can be dismissed on this count itself. 25. In so far as ownership of the subject property is concerned, the petitioner has not tendered on record any authentic and legal evidence substantiating his legal heirship qua Arjansing Malkani. What has been stated in the petition is that the petitioner has right, title and interest in the subject property on the basis of an un-registered development agreement dated 23rd November, 1979 purported to have been executed by deceased Arjansing Malkani on the basis of a power of attorney dated 18th June, 1979. If the petitioner is basing his claim of ownership through his father then there is hardly any question of execution of any development agreement in his favour, that too, by paying substantial consideration. The petition, therefore, can be said to be lacking in bona fides. 26. If the petitioner is basing his claim of ownership through his father then there is hardly any question of execution of any development agreement in his favour, that too, by paying substantial consideration. The petition, therefore, can be said to be lacking in bona fides. 26. The respondents have acted upon the impugned Notification dated 8th July, 2019 by issuing impugned notice dated 4th March, 2021 in respect of computing the compensation for passing an award under section 17 which is in consequent of the impugned Notification dated 8 th July, 2019. The petitioner can very well challenge the same before the Slum Tribunal under section 17 (7) of the Slums Act. 27. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.5 that the occupants of the said property were residing in a very much unhygienic condition and without having any basic civic amenities and, therefore, the Competent Authority declared the same as Slums under section 4 (1) of the Slums Act on 26th August, 1987. A Notification to that effect was published in Official Gazette on 1st October, 1987. No improvement of any nature whatsoever has been made after the said Notification dated 26th August, 1987. The Notification, according to respondent No.5 has, therefore, attained finality. Since there were no improvements carried out qua the subject property, living condition of the occupants further deteriorated and the subject land became more unhygienic and hazardous not only to the slum dwellers but to public at large. 28. It is contended that it became imperative to implement a scheme under DCR 33 (10) for rehabilitating the slum dwellers on the subject plot. Respondent No.5, therefore, conducted a General Body Meeting on 4th April, 2011 and 24th April, 2021 wherein it was decided to appoint respondent No.6-M/S. Mighty Engineers and Developers for implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the subject property under Amended Development Control Regulations 33 (10). Respondent executed common as well as individual consents and passed a resolution for taking necessary steps for acquiring the subject property under section 14 (1) of the Slums Act. The petitioner could have, as he claims to be owner of the subject property, taken steps for improvement in the living conditions of slum dwellers by providing basic civic amenities. However, he did not do anything for more than 40 years. 29. The petitioner could have, as he claims to be owner of the subject property, taken steps for improvement in the living conditions of slum dwellers by providing basic civic amenities. However, he did not do anything for more than 40 years. 29. Thus, it can be seen that the respondents have meticulously followed due process of law for the purpose of acquiring the subject property. 30. The petition being devoid of substance stands dismissed. 31. The parties to bear their respective costs.