Bombay High Court
Shri Saibaba Mitra Mandal vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 5 August, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:31064
FA-553-18-F2.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.553 OF 2018.
Shri. Saibaba Mitra Mandal,
A Society registered, having office at
Bajaj Road, Near Jethwa Nagar,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067 ...Appellant.
VERSUS
1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay, a body corporate constituted
under B.M.C, Act and having main office
at Mahapalika Marg, Mahapalika Bhavan,
Mumbai 400 001.
2. Savjibhai Jagjivan Jetwa
3. Vimal Harjivan Jethwa,
Legal heir of Harjivan Jagjivan Jethwa,
Defendant No.4, having their property
at Bajaj Road, Kandivali (W),
Mumbai - 400067.
Through Constituted Attorney
Shri Balwant P. Doshi, residing at
7/49, Lata Properties, Ground Floor
Suryasadan Bldg., Sion Main Road,
Sion (W), Mumbai - 400 022.
rsk 1 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 :::
FA-553-18-F2.doc
4. Jagdish Jagjivan Jethwa,
having his property bearing Survey
No.86(2) Part, CTS. No.344-A,
situated at Bajaj Road, Near Jethwa
Nagar, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai-400 O67
Through his Constituted Attorney
Shri Balwant P. Doshi, an adult,
Indian inhabitant, having his
address at 7/49, Lata Properties,
Ground Floor, Surya Sadan Building,
Sion Main Road, Sion (W).
Mumbai - 400 022.
5. Nemi Krishna Co-operative Housing
Society, A Society registered under
the provisions of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Society Registration
Act, 1961 and having its address at
Vasanji Lalji road, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai - 400 067. ...Respondents
------------
Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w. Ms. Bhakti Wast i/b Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh for
the Appellant.
Mr. Narendra V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Pallavi Khare for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Jagdish K. Hegde for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Mr. Mehul Rathod a/w. Ms. Pragya i/b M/s. Legal Vision for respondent
No.5.
------------
rsk 2 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 :::
FA-553-18-F2.doc
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : 5th July, 2024.
Pronounced on : 5th August, 2024.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Appeal was admitted vide order dated 8th January, 2020. Being aggrieved by dismissal of L. C Suit No 2232 of 2001 vide Judgment dated 5th December 2017 passed by City Civil Court, the original plaintiff is before this Court. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court. FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. L. C. Suit No.2232 of 2001 was filed by the Plaintiff-Society on behalf of 27 members of the Society who had their stalls existing on land bearing survey No.86(2) (Part) corresponding to CTS No.344-A situated at Bajaj Road, Near Jethwa Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai. It was contended that land admeasuring 105 square meters covered under the 27 stalls is assessed for Non Agricultural taxes by the office of Additional District Deputy Collector vide order dated 29 th June, 1998 and taxes are being paid by the Plaintiff. L.C. Suit No.5752 of 1998 was filed by the Plaintiff seeking injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the stalls without due process of law and the Plaintiff was protected by order passed in the said Suit.
rsk 3 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 :::
FA-553-18-F2.doc
3. Subsequently, notice came to be issued under Section 342 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) which was replied by the plaintiff by its letter dated 7 th January 1999. L.C. Suit No.1308/1999 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants challenging the notice dated 6 th January 1999 issued under Section 349 of MMC Act. Vide Judgment dated 6th January 1999, the Civil Court protected the stalls by its interim order. Court Commissioner came to be appointed in the said proceedings and report dated 27 th February 2001 was submitted by the Court Commissioner stating that out of 27 stalls 12 stalls have walls of plywood and two stalls have walls of partly tin sheets and the other stalls are erected with bamboo sticks and wood. By Judgment and Order dated 20 th March 2001 the City Civil Court in LC Suit No.1308/1999 dismissed the suit, however, granted liberty to plaintiffs to apply for regularization.
4. Accordingly on 2nd April 2001, the plaintiff filed an application for regularization with the Corporation. It was pleaded that there was no communication from the defendant-Corporation with regard to the said Application. The cause of action arose on 17th April 2001 when the officers of the Corporation came to the site and threatened demolition.
5. The relief claimed was for declaration that defendants have no right to demolish 27 stalls unless and until decision is taken on rsk 4 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc regularization application dated 2nd April 2001. By order of 17th April 2001 the Assistant Commissioner held that the permission for 27 stalls cannot be considered as documents submitted does not prove the authenticity of the land and that the stalls are unauthorized. The suit came to be amended and prayer was sought to challenge the orders dated 17th April 2001 and 27th April 2001. Subsequently, defendant Nos.2 to 6 who were owners of the land and the Society came to be impleaded.
6. The Suit came to be resisted by defendant No.6-Society contending that the Society is in occupation and possession of CTS No.344-A, 344-D and 344A-2-6 and the said property is adjacent to the railway platform No.1 of Kandivali Station, on the eastern side of the property. It was contended that at the instance of the Railway Authorities the Developer/Owner had given right of way to the Railways to facilitate the commuters to have additional easy access to platform No.1. The members of the plaintiff/hawkers gradually put up temporary structures of different dimensions by encroaching upon the property. It was contended that the Society is in actual physical possession of the said property. It was contended that stalls have been constructed unauthorizedly and the submission of the regularization application would not entitle them to continue unauthorized accommodation.
rsk 5 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 :::
FA-553-18-F2.doc
7. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 also filed their written statement contending that defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the owners of the said land and they had entered into development agreement pursuant to which development was carried out and the Defendant No 6-Society was formed. It was contended that the plaintiff has no right in the suit land and the stalls constructed thereon are illegal and unauthorized.
8. The Parties went to trial. The Suit was dismissed by City Civil Court by judgment dated 18th October 2012. As against which Appeal No.1584 of 2012 was filed in this Court and vide order dated 6th June 2017, the High Court remanded the suit to City Civil Court by framing additional Issue No.3A with direction to decide the Suit before 15 th December 2017 without taking further evidence.
9. The plaintiff had examined one Ashok Sambhaji Kasavkar whereas defendant-Corporation had examined Pramod Mahesh Bramhankar and Madhukar Maruti Kamble. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 examined Balwant Pitambar Doshi and Mr. Gopinath Nair. Both parties submitted documentary evidence.
10. The Trial Court framed and answered the following issues:
SR. POINTS FINDINGS
NO.
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
order passed by AMC dated 17/04/2001 In negative.
and the subsequent letter dated rsk 6 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc 27/04/2001 are illegal and bad in law ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the In negative. defendant intends to demolish the suit structures without following due process of law ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit In negative. structure is authorized or tolerated by any policy ?
3-A. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are In negative.
entitled to erect, locate and situate their 27 stalls at land Survey No.87(2) (Part), CTS No.344-A, Bajaj Road, Near Jethwa Nagar, Kandivali (West), Mumbai and whether the location of the Plaintiffs' stalls at this site was ever authorized or permitted by the Municipal Authority ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for In negative. declaration ?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for In negative. injunction ?
6. What order ? As per final order.
11. The findings of the Trial Court can be broadly summarized as under:
(a) It is admitted position that the Defendant Nos 2 to 5 are owners of the land where the stalls are erected and property is transferred to Defendant No 6 in the year 2011. In the earlier suit, the Trial Court had held that 27 stalls are constructed without permission and while rsk 7 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc dismissing the suit, permitted the Plaintiff to file application for regularization within period of four weeks, which has been rejected vide order dated 17th April, 2001.
(b) As regards issue No.3A framed by this Court, the Trial Court held that there is admission of the plaintiff that the suit structures are unauthorized, that no permission had been taken from the Corporation or the owners before erecting the structures on the land admittedly owned by Defendant Nos.2 to 5. The payment of fine imposed by the Additional District Deputy Collector of yearly nonagricultural use does not amount to regularization or authorization of non agricultural use. The witness for the plaintiff has accepted in the cross examination that till date of his evidence, the suit stalls are of the same material as mentioned in the notice. He had further admitted that in the earlier Suit the plaintiffs are permitted to submit the proposal for regularization which was not submitted through an Architect and no fresh proposal was sent to the Competent Authority.
(c) The property is close to the Railway Station and the suit structures are adjoining to Railway Station and the High Court in the case of Azad Hawkers Union and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition No.652 of 2017 had directed removal of all hurdles within 150 meters from the railway station.
rsk 8 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 :::
FA-553-18-F2.doc
(d ) The structures are erected using inflammable material without
permission from the Corporation. Regularization of such unauthorized temporary structures is not covered under Section 337 of MMC Act or Section 44 of MRTP Act.
(e) In support of application for regularization, the documents submitted were registration certificate, copy of N.A tax which did not prove that permission was obtained by Plaintiff for erecting the structures.
(f) The structures are not authorized nor tolerated as the plaintiff has come with the case that the suit structures are in existence since the year 1988.
SUBMISSIONS:
12. Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court minutely through judgment of Trial Court. He submits that in the earlier round of litigation, notice under Section 349 of MMC Act was issued as it was alleged that the stalls were constructed with inflammable material and that subsequently the inflammable material has been removed and thus the cause of action under Section 349 of MMC Act does not survive. Pointing out to the findings of the Trial Court, he submits that the Trial Court has held that the datum line policy will not apply as structures are not shown to be constructed prior to 1st April 1962 suffers from perversity as structures are not on rsk 9 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc government land but on private property and the datum line policy cannot be applied to private property. He submits that if the Society is seeking possession, the remedy is to file a civil suit by Society for recovery of possession and the same cannot be done with the aid of the Statutory Authorities. He submits that the notice under Section 349 of MMC Act was issued on 6 th January 1999 pursuant to which application for regularization was made as per the order passed in the previous proceedings. He submits that as the inflammable material itself has been removed, the proposal for regularization can be reconsidered.
13. Mr. Rathod, learned counsel for defendant No.5-Society would submit that the previous Suit No.1308 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiff challenging notice dated 6 th January 1999 under Section 349 of the MMC Act, which suit was dismissed and by virtue of liberty granted by the City Civil Court application for regularization was made by the plaintiff which also came to be rejected. He submits that the relief which was initially sought in the Suit was that defendants had no right to demolish the structures unless decision on regularization application is taken. As decision is taken on the regularization application rejecting the application, the Suit is rightly rejected.
14. Mr.Walawalkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the rsk 10 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc Corporation would submit that notice under Section 349 of MMC Act came to be issued to the 27 stalls as the same were constructed of inflammable material. He submits that it is not disputed that the structures are temporary structures and thus there is no question of regularization of temporary structures. He submits that another obstacle in way of regularization application is the findings of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs are not owners of the land and without the consent of the owners, application for regularization is not maintainable. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court in case of Mubaraz Musafir Khan vs. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors., Writ Petition No.13482 of 2022 decided on 17th November 2023 has held that only the owner of the plot can make application for regularization. He submits that under Section 53 (3) of the MRTP Act there is power to remove unauthorized constructions. Pointing out to the Maharashtra Development Plan Rules of 1970 and Rule (6) (d), Rule 10 and Form-1, he submits that Form No.1 can be submitted only by the owners. He submits that in the Suit, one of the challenges to the order was the Assistant Commissioner had no authority and was rightly negated by the Trial Court. He submits that as the stalls are erected within 150 meters, the judgment of Division Bench of this Court directing removal of those structures would apply. He submits that the rights of the plaintiff qua Society is as regards the rsk 11 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc land, whereas the Corporation is concerned with unauthorized structures which can be demolished if found to be constructed without authority.
15. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 adopts the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Society and Corporation and would submit that in the cross examination the witness for the plaintiff has admitted that the suit property belongs to defendant Nos. 2 and 5 and that they were constructed without permission of the owner. He submits that in view thereof the plaintiffs cannot apply for regularization. He further points out the admission of the witnesses for the plaintiffs that when the stalls were installed the construction of building of defendant No. 6 was in progress and permission of defendant No 6 was not sought.
16. In rejoinder Mr. Sawant would submit that notice dated 6 th January 1999 was issued under Section 349 of MMC Act by reason of use of inflammable material which was since removed. To counter this, Mr. Walawalkar, would submit that during the pendency of the proceedings, order of status quo was passed which is applicable to both parties and as such they could not have removed the inflammable material.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
1. Whether the order passed by the Assistant Municipal rsk 12 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc Commissioner dated 17th April 2001 and the subsequent letter dated 27th April 2001 are illegal and bad in law ?
2. Whether the structures of the Plaintiff are required to be protected?
AS TO POINT NO 1:
17. In the first round of litigation, L. C. Suit No.1308 of 1999 was filed by the Plaintiff challenging notice dated 6 th January 1999 issued under Section 349 of the MMC Act. Section 349 of MMC Act empowers the Commissioner to issue any directions requiring removal of any external wall or covering which is constructed of inflammable material and reads thus:
"349. Roofs and external walls of buildings not to be of inflammable materials:
(1) No external wall and no covering of a roof built or renewed since the Bombay Municipal Act, 1872, came into force shall, except with the written permission of the Commissioner, consist of wood, doth, canvas, grass, leaves, mats or any other inflammable material.
(2) If any external wall or covering of a roof is or has been, since the said Act came into force, constructed of any such material, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of the building to which such wall or roof pertains to remove such wall or covering.
(3) In relation to buildings in the suburbs [or, as the case may be, the extended suburbs] the provisions of this section shall rsk 13 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc apply as if for the reference in sub-sections (1) and (2) to the Bombay Municipal Act, 1872, reference had been made to the Bombay Municipal (Extension of Limits) Act, 1950, [or, as the case may be, the Bombay Municipal] [Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA (Amendment)] Act, 1956] :
Provided that nothing in sub-section (2) shall prevent the Commissioner from requiring the removal of any external wall or covering if it was built or renewed or retained in contravention of any law in force in the suburbs immediately before the coming into force of the Bombay Municipal (Extension of Limits) Act, 1950 [or, as the case may be, in force in the extended suburbs immediately before the coming into force of the Bombay Municipal [Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA (Amendment)] Act, 1956].]"
18. The suit came to be dismissed by judgment dated 5 th December 2017 with liberty to the plaintiff to apply for regularization and for stay of demolition pending consideration of their prayers. It is pursuant to the said liberty granted that application came to be moved by the plaintiff for regularization on 2nd April 2001. In the instant suit what is thus under challenge is the order of 17 th April 2001 passed on the regularization Application. By the order impugned, the Assistant Commissioner has held that the request for granting permission for 27 stalls cannot be granted as the documents submitted by the plaintiff does not prove the authenticity of the land rsk 14 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc and the stalls. The documents which were produced in support of the application before the Corporation were registration certificate of the Society and photocopy of Non Agricultural tax issued by the Additional District Deputy Collector, NSD.
19. Against the dismissal of the instant suit on 18 th October, 2012 an Appeal was preferred and this Court while remanding the matter by order dated 6th June 2017 had framed an additional issue No.3A as to the entitlement of the plaintiff to erect, locate and situate their 27 stalls and whether the location of the plaintiff's stall was ever authorized or permitted by the Municipal Authorities. It is therefore clear that the issues required to be considered is the authorization of the plaintiff's stall and the validity of order dated 17 th April 2001. The issue as regards Section 349 of MMC Act which was the subject matter of the challenge in L.C. Suit No.1308 of 1999 no longer survives for consideration as the suit was dismissed by judgment of 20 th March 2001 which was not challenged by the Plaintiff and thus has attained finality.
20. As far as the validity of the order dated 17 th April 2001 is concerned, the same was passed on the regularization application filed by the Plaintiff dated 2nd April, 2001. The question is whether the structures erected by the members of the Plaintiff can be regularized. The hurdle which comes in the way of the regularization rsk 15 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc are the Maharashtra Development Plan Rules of 1970 (Rules of 1970) framed under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. As pointed out by Mr. Walawalkar, learned Senior Advocate, Rule 6 and 10 of the Rules of 1970 read with Form I which is the prescribed Form requires the authority of the owner of the land as one of the requisite documents to be submitted under Rule 6 is the property register card or other document showing ownership of the land proposed to be developed. Rule 10 which deals with the permission to retain development of land carried out without proper authority requires the applicant to submit the relevant particulars and documents enumerated under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 6 had he applied for permission before the development was carried out.
21. Reading of the Rules of 1970 would indicate that without the consent of the owner of the land, the application for regularization itself was not maintainable as Form I requires the signature of owner on the Form. In the present case the application for regularization was not filed in the prescribed Form No 1, not signed by the owner and what was filed was a simple application seeking permission to construct 27 stalls by relying upon two documents i.e. registration certificate of Plaintiff and the photocopy of NA Tax. Apart from the admitted position that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the land, the said application did not fulfill the requisites of Rule 6 of Rules of 1970.
rsk 16 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 :::
FA-553-18-F2.doc
Secondly the structures are admittedly temporary structures and no application for regularization can be made in respect of temporary structures. In the decision dated 17th November, 2022 passed in case of Mubaraz Musafir Khan vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation in Writ Petition No 13482 of 2022, Division Bench of this Court had accepted the submission of the Corporation that application for regularization, if any, can be made only by owner of the plot and nobody else. As there was no document produced to prove the authenticity of the land and the stalls, vide order dated 17 th April, 2001, the Corporation has rightly rejected the application.
22. The witness for the plaintiff in his cross examination has admitted that though the plaintiff has been registered on 2 nd September 1988, the suit property has not been shown as property of the Trust. He has further admitted that the suit property belongs to the defendant Nos.2 and 5. He has further admitted that no permission was sought from the owners at the time of installation of the stalls. There is specific admission by the witness for the plaintiff that the suit property belongs to the Society and thus the refusal of the permission for 27 stalls cannot be faulted with. It is also well settled that merely because NA fine has been imposed upon structures, payment of the same would not amount to the structure being regularized. Accordingly, I answer Point No 1 in the negative.
rsk 17 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 :::
FA-553-18-F2.doc
AS TO POINT NO 2:
23. The structures are admittedly erected without the permission of the Planning Authority or the consent of owners of the land. The structures could be protected if the erection was in accordance with the development regulations or were tolerated structures. No submission has been advanced by Mr. Sawant and rightly so that the structures were constructed in accordance with development regulations. It is Mr. Sawant's own submission that the datum line policy will not apply to private property. There is no provision of law under which temporary structures erected by encroaching upon third private party's land can be regularized or protected. The plaintiff's witness has deposed that at present also all the suit stalls are in the same material as indicated in the notice of 6 th January 1999. He has further admitted that regularization proposal was not submitted through architect and no fresh proposal was sent to Competent Authority after receipt of the letter. He has further admitted that for said proposal NOC of the owners of the land was not sought.
24. In the present case the stalls are erected on the land which is not owned by the Plaintiff and no permission was taken either from the owner of the land or the Planning Authority to erect the structures. Once it is held that the regularization application has been rightly rejected by the Corporation, there can be no protection to the rsk 18 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc structures. Emphasis was laid by Mr. Sawant on the present position claimed that the inflammable material has been replaced. The fallacy of the said submission is that the matter has travelled far beyond the notice of Section 349 of MMC Act and has reached to the validity of the order dated 17th April, 2001 and the authorization of the erected structures.
25. The fact that regularization Application was filed indicates that the stalls erected were unauthorized without seeking permission of the Corporation. The stalls are admittedly located within 150 meters of the railway station and as per the decision of the High Court in the case of Azad Hawkers Union and Ors vs Union of India 2017(6) BOM.C.R. 481, Division Bench of this Court has issued several directions including that no hawking would be permitted within 150 meters from any railway station or on footbridges and overbridges. Apart from the merits of the matter, in view of the Division Bench decision, no permission can be granted for erecting stalls or regularizing the unauthorized stalls within 150 meters of railway station.
CONCLUSION:
26. No submissions have been canvassed to substantiate that the structures erected by the plaintiffs could have been regularized by the Corporation. As the structures are constructed on private land, the rsk 19 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc permissible datum line policy also cannot be applied. For purpose of regularization, it is required to be shown that the structures have been erected in accordance with the planning regulations. There is no material which has been produced on record to satisfy that requirement. The structures being unauthorized and no documents being produced in support of the Application dated 2 nd April 2001 by which permission could have been granted for erection of 27 stalls, the order dated 17th April 2001 rejecting the application does not suffer from any invalidity. The Trial Court on the basis of evidence on record has rightly appreciated the evidence and answered the issues accordingly. The issue as to entitlement of the plaintiffs to erect, locate and situate their 27 stalls on the said land and the authorization of said structures was an issue directed to be framed by this Court in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and thus the Trial Court had framed the issue and rightly answered the same against the plaintiff.
27. In view of the above, L.C. Suit No.2232 of 2001 has been rightly dismissed by the Trial Court.
28. Resultantly, Appeal fails and stands dismissed. In view of disposal of appeal, Interim/Civil Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
rsk 20 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 :::
FA-553-18-F2.doc
29. At this stage, request is made by learned counsel for the appellant for extending the protection granted by the Civil Court and continued by this Court by order of 5 th February 2018. He submits that protection granted was for restraining the Corporation from taking any coercive action. He seeks extension of protection for a period of 8 weeks.
30. Mr. Walawalkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Corporation would submit that considering that the structures are erected with inflammable material and are situated close to the railway station there is serious apprehension of fire hazard. He would further submit that the Division Bench of this Court had directed removal of structures within 150 meters of railway station and thus request is opposed. To counter this, Mr. Sawant, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that one of submissions canvassed during arguments was that during the pendency of the proceedings the inflammable material has been replaced.
31. Considering that there was protection in favour of the appellants since the year 2017 which is continued till now, the protection is extended for a period of 8 weeks from today. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted. Asthe protection was rsk 21 of 22 ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 ::: FA-553-18-F2.doc to the extent of restraining the Corporation from not taking any coercive action, it is made clear that for a period of 8 weeks both parties to maintain status quo qua the nature of the structure.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
rsk 22 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 11:38:07 :::