1 1240.11-ao-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1240 OF 2011 Mrs.Kalavati Mahadeo Mahabare and others. ... Appellants. V/s. Secretary to the Govt, Revenue & Forest Dept. and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1241 OF 2011 Shri Ashish Kantilal Gujrathi and others. ... Appellants. V/s. Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra, Revenue & Forest Dept. and others. ... Respondents. N.V.Vechalekar i/b. N.V.Vechalekar & Co. for the appellant. H.J.Dedhia, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4. R.S.Apte, Senior Counsel with Ashuthosh Gole for respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 14th November 2011. P.C. : Admit. By consent of parties, appeals are taken up for final disposal at the admission state. 2. The appellants in both appeals have tendered two separate suits before the trial court raising challenge to the notice 2 1240.11-ao-- issued by the Municipal Council, Junnar on 13th May 2011 under section 53 and 152 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 directing the appellant to demolish unauthorised structure. It is the contention of the appellants/ original plaintiffs that they have taken small pieces of plots from Agricultural Produce Market Committee (A.P.M.C.) on lease basis for raising temporary sheds and are running their business activities. It is also contended by the appellants/ original plaintiffs that they have been issued licences by appropriate authority for running business under the Shops and Establishment Act. The municipal council also recovers tax from the respective appellants and the appellants have been paying taxes since years together. The appellants/ original plaintiffs have contended before the trial Court that the notice issued by the municipal council is bad in law and, therefore, prayed that the municipal council be restrained by an order of injunction from demolishing the structures raised by the appellants/ original plaintiffs. 3. The municipal council has supported their action contending that the appellants have not secured permission for raising temporary sheds. Merely because some licences have been obtained under the Shops and Establishment Act for running the business and the fact that the municipal council is accepting taxes from the appellants do not in itself regularise the unauthorised structures raised by the respective appellants. It is also contended by the municipal council that the disputed structures are abutting the road and the property is required for widening of road. The municipal council has also taken a stand that the plaintiffs have not established that the land on which disputed structures are raised belong to the A.P.M.C. 3 1240.11-ao-- According to the municipal council, the disputed structure alongside the road are on the government property. The trial court after considering the submissions made by the parties was pleased to reject the application tendered by the appellants/ original plaintiffs. Hence the appellants are before this Court. 4. While recording reasons, the trial court has held that the notice issued by the municipal council is bad in law as the municipal council has not adhered to the procedure as directed by the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, CDJ 2011 SC 093. It is true that the appellants/ original plaintiffs have not been heard by the municipal council in regard to the proposed action based on notice dated 13th May 2011. Before the proposed action is taken, it is necessary, as per the direction of the Apex Court, to give the respective appellants/ original plaintiffs an opportunity of hearing. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra). In para-22 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under: 22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat/ Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge 4 1240.11-ao-- expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land. 5. Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel appearing for the municipal council, on instruction, states that respective appellants/ original plaintiffs would be given proper hearing before proceeding to take any action in pursuance of the impugned notice which is subjected to be challenged in the respective suits. Hence, it is directed that the municipal council shall afford opportunity of hearing to all the appellants/ original plaintiffs in pursuance of the notice issued by the municipal council earlier and, after considering the submissions of respective appellants/ original plaintiffs, shall pass a reasoned order. The municipal council shall proceed to take action only after hearing the appellants and after passing reasoned order in pursuance of the notice already issued. All the appellants shall appear before the Chief Officer/ Tahasildar on 21st November 2011 at 11.00 a.m. In view of this direction, no separate notice requiring their presence before the Chief Officer/ Tahasildar is necessary. The Chief Officer/ Tahasildar shall, after considering the submission of the appellants and after considering the documentary evidence that may be placed before him by the respective appellants, shall proceed to pass a reasoned order and shall take appropriate action thereafter, if necessary. Until then, the Municipal Council shall not take any adverse action against the 5 1240.11-ao-- appellants. With these directions, both appeals from order are allowed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the merits of the controversy involved in the matters. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. Counsel for the appellants/ original plaintiffs informs that he would instruct his clients to withdraw the suits. 7. In view of disposal of appeals from order, the pending civil applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)