27] In the fact situation with which we are concerned, to permit the Petitioners to build any argument on the basis of interim order dated 15 June 1998 in writ petition no. 851 of 1998, would virtually amount to permitting the Petitioners to take undue advantage of the interim order obtained by them, even though, the writ petition in which the same was obtained has been ultimately dismissed. As observed in the case of Kanoria Chemicals (supra) and several other decisions referred to above , this would be neither permissible, nor equitable . The Respondents, who have succeeded in Writ Petition No. 851 of 1998, cannot, despite such success, have their acquisition voided, merely because show cause notice dated 3 July 1998, requiring the Petitioners to show cause as to why the said property be not acquired, was issued when the interim order dated 15 June 1998 staying the operation of 20 August 1997 declaring the said property as ' slum area' was in operation. Admittedly, in the present case, by the time the Impugned Notification dated 31 May 2006 was issued, there was no controversy whatsoever, that the said property was “ slum area” in terms of Section 4 of the Slum Act. There is accordingly, no legal infirmity in the issuance of Impugned Notification dated 31 May 2006.
