1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. FIRST APPEAL NO.2151/2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5597/2008 Kantaben Babubhai Sathwara and others. ..Appellants -VERSUS- Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. ..Respondent ......... Mr.K.D.Shah, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.J.J.Xevier, Advocate for the respondent. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The present appellants/original plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration that the notice dated 14.12.2002 issued by the Planning Authority under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short MRTP Act) is illegal and not binding upon them. A consequential relief of perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from enforcing the said notice is also claimed. The respondent/defendant raised the objection to the 2 maintainability of the suit based on Section 149 of the MRTP Act. The Trial Court upholding the objection has recorded the finding that the suit is not maintainable having regard to the bar contained in Section 149 of the MRTP Act. The bar contained in Section 149 to the extent it relates the challenge to the notice issued by the Planning Authority is express. This section not only grants finality to the notice but also excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by specifically declaring that such a notice cannot be questioned in any suit or any other legal proceedings. 2. In the present case, the notice has been issued under Section 55 of the MRTP Act and sub-section (2) of Section 55 declares that the decision of the Planning Authority on the question of what is development of temporary nature shall be final. A notice under Section 55 would be in relation to the unauthorized development or user other then in conformity with the development plan which touches the contingencies enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 55 of the MRTP Act. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on more than half a dozen judgments passed by the Single Judge of this Court categorically holding that the notice under Section 55 of the MRTP Act cannot be challenged by filing a suit as jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been expressly barred by Section 149 of the MRTP Act. Reliance is placed on the judgments reported in 2005(3) Bombay C.R. 300, 2008(2) Bombay C.R. 335, the order passed in Appeal from 3 Order No.912/2002, 2005(4) Bombay C.R. 577, the order passed in First Appeal St.No.14291/2008, so also the judgment passed in C.R.A. No.222/1999. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment reported in 2002 (4) All M.R. 429. The said judgment does not deal with challenge to the notice under Section 55 of the MRTP Act but it relates to a deem permission under Section 45(5) of the MRTP Act. The Division Bench has held that in the matter of deem permission there is no order passed by the authority, as such, there is no question of finality being attached to such an order. The said case stands altogether on different footing and on different factual matrix. In the result, the said judgment has no application to the case wherein the notice under Section 55 of the MRTP Act is challenged by filing of the suit. 5. Having regard to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the clear view that the suit instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs before the City Civil Court was not maintainable having regard to the express bar in Section 149 of the MRTP Act. In the result, there being no merit, the appeal stands dismissed. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he proposes to move the appropriate forum for challenging the notice and makes a limited prayer to protect the structure for some time so as to enable the appellants to take the 4 appropriate proceedings. In the result, though the appeal is dismissed the respondent is directed to maintain status-quo in regard to the suit structure for four weeks from today. 7. Appeal dismissed. In view of the disposal of appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. JUDGE