:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.1370 OF 200 FIRST APPEAL NO.1370 OF 200 FIRST APPEAL NO.1370 OF 2008 Shri Dilip Sadanand Salvi ...Appellant. v. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai...Respondents. Mr.Pradip Kadam , adv. for the Appellant. Mr.J.J.Xavier , adv. for the Respondent/BMC. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 22nd September, 2008. DATE: 22nd September, 2008. DATE: 22nd September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. This is the first appeal filed by the original plaintiff. Though normally the first appeal has to be admitted because several questions of fact may be involved. However, in the peculiar circumstances and facts of this case, I find that it is not a fit case even to admit. 3. On 9-10-1998 the Municipal Corporation issued notice under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act calling upon the plaintiff to remove the structure, which was raised by him on the public property. Notice was replied by the plaintiff and he offered to deposit certain fee for non agricultural use of the said property. On 16-10-1998 the concerned :2: officer of the Bombay Municipal Corporation sent another notice to him pointing out that in the reply dated 13-10-98 filed by the plaintiff, he was trying to make use of the property for commercial purposes, while previously he had obtained permission only for raising structure or Mandap for Ganpati festival. Therefore, he was asked to remove the said structure within 48 hours. The plaintiff filed Long Cause Suit No.795 of 1999 challenging the notice under Section 314. He tried to contend that the structure was not raised for the purpose of Ganpati festival and that the structure, which was raised for Ganpati festival was already removed and the suit structure was different. He tried to contend that he had purchased the land and the structure on 20-8-1994 under the agreement for sale from one Gajanan Vishnu Pavaskar and since then he is in possession. According to him, this is not a public road and, therefore, notice is not valid. 4. The suit was contested by the Municipal Corporation contending that plaintiff had obtained permission for erecting a mandap for Ganpati Festival in 1998. However, after the festival was over, he did not remove the said Mandap. Therefore, notice was issued to him to remove the structure. It is contended that structure raised by the plaintiff is on the public road, which obstructed vehicular traffic. It is illegal and without any authority and, therefore, it is liable to be :3: removed. 5. After hearing the evidence for both the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant contended that the disputed property or structure is shown in the map dated 5-10-1998 prepared by the Additional Tehsildar (Non Agricultural) Kurla 1. That map indicates that the disputed property is at the corner of M.G.Road and lane and according to the Municipal Corporation, this obstructs vehicular traffic. Under Section 314, the Municipal Corporation can remove such structure on public road, etc. without any notice. However, Mr.Xavier the learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation pointed out that in view of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 545 and others (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 545 and others (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 545 , the Municipal Corporation has commenced to give notice of 48 hours even under Section 314. Admittedly, that notice has been issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the structure raised by him is lawful or with permission. Even if for a moment, his contention is accepted that the Mandap raised for the purpose of Ganpati Festival has already been removed and this is different does not help him. :4: The plaintiff contends that he has purchased this property admeasuring about 20 ft X 10 ft. on 20-8-1994 from Gajanan Vishnu Pavaskar. However, he has not produced any sale deed to support his claim. He has produced a copy of one affidavit sworn in by one Gajanan Vishnu Pavaskar and according to him, by that affidavit, property has been sold to the plaintiff. Immovable property admeasuring 25 X 10 ft. situated in Bombay city can not be worth less than Rs.100/-. Sale deed of such property, therefore, necessarily requires to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Firstly, there is no sale deed and the affidavit can not be a substitute of registered sale deed. There is no document to show that the said Gajanan was the owner of the property. It is the piece of land abutting the public road and the lane and at the meeting point of the said road and lane. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the structure in dispute is on the private land of anybody. In these circumstances, I find that the plaintiff has no right to continue that structure. The Municipal Corporation was right in taking action under Section 314. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit. I find no substance in the present appeal. 7. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. :5: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)