1 AO 916/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 916 OF 2010 Mukesh Dilip Pakadia & Ors. .. Appellants V/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr... Respondents Mr. S.K. Bhosale for the appellants. Ms. K.K. Soraan for respondent no.1. Ms. S.V. Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd June 2010 passed by the learned Judge of t172.16.4.3/upload/login.phphe City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, rejecting the appellants’ application for interim injunction. 3. The appellants claim to be in possession of suit huts. The structures of hut are unauthorised. A notice was issued to the appellant no.1 by the respondents on 5th February 2009 for 2 AO 916/10 removal of the unauthorised structures, failing which the respondent Municipal Corporation would take steps for demolition. By filing of a suit, the appellants challenged the notice and sought an injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structures. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants firstly submitted that the suit structures were slums and as they were in existence prior to 1st January 1995, the appellants were protected as per the guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 14th May 1998. The guidelines do not confer protection to all huts but provide for giving of an alternative accommodation to occupants of eligible huts. An inquiry was held and by an order dated 3rd June 2008, the appellant no.1 was held to be ineligible for allotment. That order was not challenged by the appellants by filing of a writ or any other appropriate proceedings. In the circumstances, the contention that the appellants are protected by the guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra in 1998, cannot be accepted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the structures were constructed on a private property. According to him, a part of the private property was acquired for the road 3 AO 916/10 widening and the remaining part remained with the owner. The structures in question are situated in the private property and therefore the respondents have no right to demolish the structures. On being asked the name of the owner of the private property, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the original owner has died and the appellants are now the owners. He was unable to point out any document under which the appellants have become owners of the suit property. In any event, since the structures are unauthorised it is immaterial whether the structures are on public property or private property and the Municipal Corporation is entitled to demolish the structures which are erected without the proper building permission. 6. No other point was urged. 7. There is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for stay of the operation of this order. The trial Court had not granted the injunction. Therefore, there is no question of grant of stay of the operation of this order. Request is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)