ssp 1 WP 2320 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2320 OF 2010 Rita Kamalaprasad Singh and Ors. .....Petitioners versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjeev R. Singh for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Singhavi, Senior Advocate with Ms.K.R.Panjabi, for respondent No. 1. Mr.F.Devitre, Senior Advocate with Ms.Pooja Kshirsagar i/by I.C.Legal, for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 24th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. By way of this petition, petitioners have prayed that respondent No.1 may be directed to issue stop work notice against respondent No.2 from putting up any construction in the suit property which petitioners are occupying. It is also prayed that Corporation may be directed to take appropriate action against respondent No.2 for violating Development Control Regulations and conditions of IOD. The petitioners are occupying the part of the premises bearing CTS No.74-A of Village Bandivali, Tal.Andheri. Respondent No.2 is developing the said property. Petitioners have already filed a civil suit which is pending, ssp 2 WP 2320 of 2010 restraining respondent No.2 from evicting them. The City Civil Court has already passed an order in favour of petitioners that the respondents herein shall not interfere with the use, occupation and possession of the petitioners in respect of the suit structure, without following due process of law. The possession of the petitioners is accordingly protected. Petitioners have filed this writ petition on the ground that respondent No.2 has violated IOD conditions by commencing construction without providing compound wall and intentionally not providing accommodation to the petitioners. It is submitted that the work carried out by respondent No.2 is in violation of IOD and the Corporation should issue stop work notice to them. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation states that in the present case, there is no breach of FSI rules and at present no FSI is allowed to respondent No.2 in respect of the area in occupation of the petitioners. It is submitted that there is no breach of IOD conditions, as no construction is carried out in the disputed portion. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioners have no right, title and interest over the property, but since civil suit is pending, the rights of the petitioners if any, can be adjudicated in the pending suit. It is submitted that petitioners have invoked Extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court with some ulterior motive and they have no right to challenge ssp 3 WP 2320 of 2010 the same, especially when their possession is protected by the Civil Court. 3. In our view, in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that no additional FSI is allowed to respondent No.2 in connection with the disputed property and when it is pointed out that no construction is carried out in the restricted area and since there is no violation of IOD conditions, the other rights of the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in this petition, especially when petitioners are required to establish their title in the pending suit before the City Civil Court. In our view, petition is thoroughly misconceived. When the petitioners have already invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court by filing a suit, subsequent petition on the alleged ground of violation of IOD condition, is not required to be entertained, especially when in view of the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation that there is no violation of IOD condition and there is no violation of FSI in connection with the disputed property is concerned. We would not like to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of the above case. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )