-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1421 OF 2008 Dr.Razia Bano : Petitioner V/s. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. : Respondents ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1422 OF 2008 Abdul Rashid Khan : Petitioner V/s. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. : Respondents ... WRIT PETITION NO.1423 OF 2008 Shameem Shah : Petitioner V/s. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. : Respondents ... AND WRIT PETITION NO.1424 OF 2008 Abdul Rehman Khan : Petitioner V/s. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Aditya Chitale for the petitioners. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar with Mrs.A.R.Joshi for respondent nos.1 -: 2 :- & 2. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, with Mr.G.W.Mattos for respondent no.3. ... CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 04, 2008. P.C. 1. By these four petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notices issued to them under section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for removal of unauthorised structures. The structures in question are four shops allegedly owned by the four petitioners around building no.1 which is apparent from the location sketch map annexed to the notices. 2. Mr.Chitale, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the structures cannot be treated as temporary or unauthorised since the respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation had issued permission for repair of the structures as far back as 1991 and has also directed removal of unauthorised area of the structures. According to the learned counsel, this implies that a portion of the structures was authorised and that the structures are not temporary. According to the petitioners, the structures were originally owned by Bajirao Shripad Thorat who then -: 3 :- sold to another person from whom the petitioners had purchased. The petitioners have relied on certain documents purporting to transfer the shops in their possession initially by Bajirao Thorat to an intermediary and, thereafter, to the petitioners. However, it is clear from the impugned notices that the respondents have not issued those notices in respect of shop no.1 which was owned by Bajirao Thorat. The notices are in respect of the structures surrounding shop no.1 which appears to have been transferred by Bajirao Thorat through some intermediary to the petitioners. In any case, no authorisation has been shown in respect of the structures in question. Moreover, the question whether such structures can be said to be temporary has already been gone into by this Court, per Sathe, J., by judgement and order of this Court dated 22.8.2007 in Appeal from Order no.630 of 2007 (Babar Sher Khan & Ors. v. The Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai & Anr.). By that judgement, the contention that similar structures cannot be said to be temporary was rejected. 3. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notices under section 55 are illegal since no opportunity to show cause and hearing was afforded to the petitioners. Section 55 of the Act reads as under:- -: 4 :- "55. Removal or discontinuance of unauthorised temporary development summarily.--(1) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained in this Chapter, where any person has carried out any development of a temporary nature unauthorised as indicated in sub-section (1) of section 52, the Planning Authority may by an order in writing direct that person to remove any structure or work erected, or discontinue the use of land made unauthorisedly as aforesaid, within fifteen days of the receipt of the order; and if thereafter, the person does not comply with the order within the said period, the Planning Authority may request the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, or authorise any of its officers or servants, to have such work summarily removed or such use summarily discontinued without any notice as directed in the order; and any development unauthorisedly made again, shall be similarly removed or discontinued summarily without making any order as -: 5 :- aforesaid. (2) The decision of the Planning Authority on the question of what is development of a temporary nature shall be final." The section in terms does not contemplate any opportunity of showing cause and hearing. The Supreme Court has observed in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan & Ors., reported in (1997 (11) SCC 121) that if the encroachment is of recent origin, the need to follow the procedure of principle of natural justice could be obviated. On the other hand, if the Corporation allows settlement of encroaches for a long time, then necessarily a modicum of reasonable notice for removal, say two weeks or ten days, and personal service on the encroachers or substituted service by fixing notice on the property is necessary. In the present case, the notices prescribe a period of 15 days. 4. It must be noted that all the present petitioners were parties to an appeal which was decided by this Court arising out of a suit filed by them in respect of the same premises. It appears from the judgement dated 18.2.2008, Per Bhatia,J., in Appeal from Order No.147 of 2008 (Mrs.Shameem Shah v. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika) -: 6 :- and other companion appeals, that the petitioners did not claim any right of being heard, but had simply contended that they were entitled to a notice under section 55. This Court had, therefore, directed the respondents to issue such notice before taking any such action. 5. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petitions which are hereby dismissed. 6. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, status quo granted by this Court shall continue to operate for a period of two weeks from today. S.A. BOBDE, J.