NMS3055-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3055 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1224 OF 2009 Esoofi Shoeb Contractor .. Plaintiff Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.J.P.Sen i/b. A.G.Shah for plaintiff Mr.P.G.Lad for defendant No.2 Mr.Rajiv Mane, AGP for State D-1, 2 and 4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th November 2010. P.C.: 1] This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the entire action initiated by the defendants for acquiring the property more particularly described in prayer (a) of the plaint is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint itself that the defendant as appropriate and competent authority under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 initiated proposal and subsequently acquired the property, belonging to the NMS3055-09 2 plaintiff. The acquisition is complete. Section 93 of the Act is clear, inasmuch as upon acquisition and particularly after issuance of notification under section 93(1), the property vests with the State. 2] It is in such circumstances that until and unless the declaration with regard to which notification is granted, that the plaintiffs who have admittedly lost title to the property cannot be granted any interim reliefs. 3] The interim relief that is claimed, according to Mr.Sen is limited and that is to permit the plaintiff to carry out demolition work of the building on the property and to remove the debris/ salvage therefrom. He has placed reliance upon several orders and directions in that behalf and copies of which are annexed as annexures to the affidavit in support from pages 17 to 32 in this regard. A perusal of the same would indicate that in those particular cases, applications were made and, therefore, the authorities permitted the demolition of the building and removal of the salvage from the site. NMS3055-09 3 4] To my mind, merely because in some cases orders have been passed does not mean that the plaintiff who has lost title to the property, prima facie, is entitled to identical reliefs. These orders do not confer any right in relation to demolition of the building at site and removal of salvage. The fact that this court has permitted making any representation in that behalf will not carry the matter any further. The property vests in the State and until the notifications are set aside, plaintiff’s request cannot be granted. For all these reasons, the notice of motion is dismissed being devoid of any merits. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)