1 1429 to 1434.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1429 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1852 OF 2011 Mr. Rajju N. Yadav ... Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondents. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1430 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1853 OF 2011 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1431 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1854 OF 2011 Mr.Rambachan Yadav ... Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1432 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1855 OF 2011 Mr.Ramnaval Yadav ... Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1433 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1856 OF 2011 2 1429 to 1434.11 Mr.Ram Avad Yadav ... Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1434 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1857 OF 2011 Mr.RamLachhan Yadav ... Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent Advocate Prayag Joshi i/b Advocate Bipin Joshi,for the Petitioners. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 22,2011. P.C. : The Petitioners have approached this Court taking exception to the orders passed by Judge City Civil Court refusing to grant ad- interim-relief in their favour in a Notice of Motion presented by respective petitioners. The Petitioners apprehend demolition of their structure at the hands of the Municipal Corporation. The Petitioners have placed reliance on the communications issued by the Assistant Commissioner-”S” ward wherein it has been recorded that the structure raised by the Petitioner is in existence prior to 01.01.1995/2000 and as per policy prescribed in that behalf petitioners are eligible for being rehabilitated. The petitioners were directed to submit the documents 3 1429 to 1434.11 on which they placed reliance in order to substantiate their contentions, and were directed to approach the Assistant Commissioner on specified date of specified time. However by subsequent order passed on 18.11.2011, the Petitioners have been directed to be evicted from the premises without offering any alternate premises for their habitation. 2 The Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation places reliance on the judgment passed by Division Bench in Writ Petition(L) No. 1298 of 2011 and other Petitions wherein the Division Bench has issued directions for demolishing unauthorized structure adjoining the water pipe line. In Paragraph 10 to 14 of the order, it is observed by the Division Bench thus:- 10. When the petitioners herein have not produced any documents before the Municipal Corporation to show their eligibility or after showing their documents they are not seen to fall within the datum line, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 11. However, we make it clear that even at this late stage and after their structures are demolished for want of any documentary evidence being produced, if any, if the petitioners produce documents showing their structures to have been in existence on or around the pipelines, the Municipal Corporation shall consider them for the purpose of determining the eligibility of such claimants. However, there shall be no stay against the demolitions which are now in progress. 12. It is clarified that these directions are not to be applied to those petitioners whose cases have already been considered by the Municipal Corporation. 13. Subject to the above directions, all the petitions are dismissed. 4 1429 to 1434.11 14. In view of the order passed in the Writ Petitions, the Notices of Motion have become infructuous. Hence, Notices of Motion are disposed of as infructuous. 3 So far as the instant matters are concerned, it is observed that the authorities have applied their mind tot he record of the case and found structures raised by the Petitioners eligible for granting protection. A Prima facie conclusion is reached by the authority that structures are in existence prior to 01.01.1995/2000. As such the Petitions are eligible prima facie for protection. However the final decision is required to be taken only after verification of the documents those would be produced by the Petitioners. 4 In view of the observations made in paragraph No. 12 of the order passed by the Division Bench, in Writ Petition referred to above, the directions issued by the Division Bench cannot be applied to those Petitioners whose cases have already been considered by Municipal Corporation. The Petitions are such of those persons whose cases have been considered by the Municipal Corporation and they have been held prima facie eligible for grant of protection. The Counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation on instructions from Assistant Engineer- Maintenance Department “S” ward makes a statement that Assistant Commissioner “S” ward will give hearing to the Petitioners and will scrutinize the documents those would be submitted by the Petitioners on 26.12.2011 at 11.00 p.m. and will pass necessary orders, if the Petitioners are found eligible for providing alternate accommodation. The corporation would take decision in that regard and would accommodate them. However, if the Assistant Commissioner arrives at the conclusion that the Petitioners are not eligible for allotment of 5 1429 to 1434.11 alternate accommodation and structure cannot be protected. It would be open for the Municipal Corporation to implement the notice issued on 18.11.2011 and proceed with the demolition drive. Untill the decision is taken by the Municipal Corporation, as regards entitlement of the Petitioner to secure alternate accommodation or protection in respect of the disputed structure, no adverse action shall be taken against them. With these direction, appeal from order stands disposed of. The Counsel for the Petitioners on instruction states that he would advise his clients to withdraw the Suit. (R.M.BORDE, J.)