1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1411 OF 2010 FROM NOTICE OF MOTION NO.968 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1011 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1741 OF 2010 Sitaram S. Sonkamble ...Appellant. v/s. The M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1412 OF 2010 FROM NOTICE OF MOTION NO.971 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1009 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1742 OF 2010 Bhiomanna R. Narsu ..Appellant v/s. The M.C.G.M. ..Respondent. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1413 OF 2010 FROM NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 965 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1014 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1743 OF 2010 Naidu Kumar Bangaraswamy ...Appellant. v/s. 2 The M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1414 OF 2010 FROM NOTICE OF MOTION NO.967 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1012 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1744 OF 2010 Vijay Y. Bansode ..Appellant. v/s The M.C.G.M. ...Respondent WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1415 OF 2010 FROM NOTICE OF MOTION NO.993 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1007 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1745 OF 2010 Prakash H. Thombre ...Appellant. v/s The M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1416 OF 2010 FROM NOTICE OF MOTION NO.969 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1010 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1746 OF 2010 Rajanna N. Narsanna ...Appellant. v. 3 The M.C.G.M. ...Respondents. Mr. C.K.Bhangoji i/by Anil L. Desai ,advs. For the Appellant. Mrs. K.K.Soran, adv. For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 30, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. According to the appellants they were working as labourers with one Mr. Thampy, developer and, therefore, they had raised certain construction and were living on the site of the work. It appears that said site was reserved as recreation ground and was required to be kept open . In Writ Petition No. 2052 of 1997 Gregorious Orthodox v/s State of Maharashtra and Others decided on 29/10/2005, High Court had directed that all the recreation grounds are required to be kept open by the owners of the plot and if there is any illegal construction or any activity on such grounds, it is the responsibility of the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate steps to stop such activities and to undo illegality. The Municipal Corporation issued notice to the present appellants under Section 351 and as the appellants did not have any documents to show that their construction was legal or was entitled to some protection under the law, orders were passed to demolish the same. The said notice and orders were challenged by the appellants by filing suits before the City Civil Court wherein they 4 had taken out notices of motion. All these notices of motion were dismissed because the appellants did not have any document to show that their constructions were authorised , approved or protected under the law. Said orders are challenged in the present appeals. 2 On perusal of the record and the contentions, it is clear that appellants claim that they were workers of developer Mr. Thampy and in that capacity, they were allowed to raise some structures and reside on the ground, which appears to be reserved as recreation ground. There was no permission or authorisation for construction of the same from the Municipal Corporation. Municipal Corporation has taken action for removal of the same unauthorised structures. According to the appellants, the developer had orally agreed to accommodate them elsewhere or to provide alternate accommodation . Firstly, there is no document to support it. Secondly, even if there is such agreement between the developer and his workers, workers may take action against the said developer on the basis of that agreement. That does not bind Municipal Authorities against taking any action as per law. In view of these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. 5 3 Therefore, all these appeals and the applications stand dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)