1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 923 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 923 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 923 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1273 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 924 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 924 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 924 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1274 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 925 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 925 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 925 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1275 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 926 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 926 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 926 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1276 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 927 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 927 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 927 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1277 OF 2007 2 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 923 OF 2007 Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay. ..Appellants Versus Pushpa Ashsok Bhosale & Ors. ..Respondents APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 924 OF 2007 Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay ..Appeallants Vs. Ramchandra H. Gupta & Ors. ..Respondents APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 925 OF 2007 Municipal Corpn. of Gr.Bombay. ..Appellants Vs. Vijay Surve & Ors. ..Respondents APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 926 OF 2007 MunicipalCorpn. of Gr.Bombay. ..Appellants Vs. 3 Hukumchand Kapoorchand Raisoni & Ors. ..Respondents APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 927 of 2007 Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay ..Appellants Vs. Riwan Ahmed & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Counsel, a/w Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate, for the appellants. (in all the matters) Mr. Suresh Gole,Advocate a/w Ms. Sarita Suryavanshi, Advocate for the respondents (in all the matters) CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 21st January, 2008. DATE : 21st January, 2008. DATE : 21st January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In all these matters, five suits were filed by different groups of persons claiming protection against the notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. According to them, under the provisions 4 of law and the Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra, they are entitled to be rehabilitated in case of removal of their structures. 3. According to Mr. Walawalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, who is appellant before this Court in all the matters, the Corporation had taken an objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs are the encroachers on the Government land and whether they are entitled to be rehabilitated or not is to be decided by the competent authority under the Act and, therefore, it was necessary that the Government has to be impleaded as the defendant before any relief could be claimed by the plaintiffs. In view of this, in all these five suits, the plaintiffs have already taken out Chamber Summons seeking certain reliefs against the orders passed by the Collector. However, it is pointed out that the Collector or the Government is not impleaded. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that the plaintiffs may be allowed to amend the Chamber Summons, the suits as well as the Notice of Motion so as to make a prayer for impleading the Government and/or the Collector as defendants and thereafter the Government/Collector may be allowed to file reply before the trial Court to the Notice of Motion 5 4. It is pointed out by Mr. Walalwalkar that 42 persons out of the plaintiffs are found to be eligible as per the order passed by the Deputy Collector and the Municipal Corporation is ready to provide them alternate accommodation immediately. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs contend that the work of road widening and nullah has already been completed and, therefore, removal of the plaintiffs’ structures is not required. In my considered opinion, all these questions can be heard and disposed of by the trial Court. It would be appropriate that the Government be impleaded and heard before the Notice of Motion is decided. In the present case, pending Chamber Summons wherein certain reliefs were claimed against the Government also, the trial Court has disposed of the Notice of Motion. 6. Therefore, with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Appeals shall stand disposed of with the following directions :- (i) The impugned orders disposing of the Notices of Motion are hereby set aside. (ii) The plaintiffs shall be allowed to amend the 6 pending Chamber Summons, the suits as well as the Notices of Motion so as to make a prayer for impleading the Government and/or the collector also as parties to the suit. Their Chamber Summons shall be allowed by the trial Court and after allowing the Chamber Summons notice be issued to the Government. After hearing the Municipal Corporation as well as the Government about the eligibility of the plaintiffs for rehabilitation as well as the need for removal of the plaintiffs for the purpose of carrying out the work of road widening and nullah, the trial Court shall hear and dispose of the Notice of Motion on its own merits. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose of the Notice of Motion within 8 weeks in view of the alleged pending work. (iii) All contentions of both the parties are kept open. (iv) The plaintiffs shall be at liberty to move the trial Court within two weeks for continuation of the ad-interim order which was previously granted prior to the disposal of the Notice of Motion. Till then, the status quo shall be 7 maintained. At the time of deciding the request for continuation of the ad-interim relief, the trial Court may consider the contention of the Corporation in respect of the 42 persons, who are found to be eligible for rehabilitation and to whom the Corporation is willing to rehabilitate immediately. (v) In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)