sk 1 wp3344.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3344 OF 2011 Mrs.Bharti Dashrath Patil : Petitioner V/s. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.Akhilesh Dubey for the petitioner. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for respondent no.1. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the notice dated 9.2.2011 issued by the respondent no.1 CIDCO under section 54(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 whereby one G.B.Patil is called upon to remove the unauthorised construction. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned notice issued sk 2 wp3344.11 by CIDCO is neither addressed to the petitioner nor the property mentioned therein is referable to the property of the petitioner i.e. house no.1025/0002, gat no.1P, sector 16, situate at village Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai. However, the said notice was pasted on the board of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned counsel prays that the impugned notice may be quashed and set aside, insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 3. The counsel for the respondent no.1 does not dispute the factual aspect of the matter, however, contended, on the basis of instructions from Mr.Gosavi, office of Chief Controller of Unauthorised Construction, that the impugned notice is issued in the name of G.B.Patil and the property owned by the said person under section 54(1) of the MRTP Act for removal of unauthorised construction alleged to have been carried out by G.B.Patil. It is pointed out that appropriate steps pursuant to the impugned notice dated 9.2.2011 shall be taken against G.B.Patil to whom the notice is addressed and no action on the basis thereof shall be initiated against the property of the petitioner. 4. On the back drop of the above referred facts, particularly in view of the statements made by the counsel for CIDCO, it is apparent that sk 3 wp3344.11 appropriate steps will be taken by CIDCO pursuant to the impugned notice only against G.B.Patil and not against the petitioner and, therefore, the cause of action in the present petition, in view of the said statement made by the counsel for CIDCO, does not survive. Hence, the petition is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)