1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9613 OF 2009 Karsan Hemraj Bauva & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Municipal Corporation of City of Thane & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.R.S.Datar for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr.Advocate with Mr.A.R.Pitale for Resp.No.1. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE: 20th November, 2009. P.C.: 1. It is the case of the Respondents that they are the owners of the land in dispute and therefore they have resorted to the procedure of Section 81A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short the Act), for the purpose of traffic improvement scheme. The stand of the petitioners is that the plot initially was 148 sq.yards out which the Corporation had purchased 104 sq.yards 2 by a deed of 19.12.1974. It is submitted that the original owner sold the balance plot of 44 sq.yards in favour of one Rajesh Builders, who applied for building approval, which was sanctioned in their favour. The building was constructed and the occupancy certificate was issued on 10.9.1975. Ever since, it is submitted that the petitioners are on the land and consequently it would not be the Corporation premises to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 81A of the Act. 2. At this stage it will not be possible for us to decide that controversy considering that the matter has been remanded by the District Court to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Thane. Considering the controversy we only clarify as under: (i)The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Thane to first examine the contention raised by the petitioners that the Corporation has no interest in the land which is of private ownership. (ii) It is only in the event that the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioners is devoid of merits, he will proceed with the matter. (iii)If there is serious dispute as to the title of the property between the petitioners and the Respondent No. 1 Corporation, the matter may be referred to the 3 Collector for his decision. (iv)We make it clear that irrespective of the title of the parties, if the Corporation requires land for traffic improvement scheme, then they may, independently take such steps which they are entitled to for that purpose. (v)During the pendency of the matter before the Commissioner and for a period of seven days thereafter, if the order to be passed by the Commissioner is adverse, the Corporation is directed not to demolish the structure. (vi)Petitioners to appear before the Commissioner on 3.12.2009 at 11.00 a.m.for further steps. 3. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)