IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3535 OF 1986. Usman Gani ..... ..... ...Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... .....Respondents. Mr.Mangal Bhandare, Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs.Madhubala Kajale AGP for the State. Ms.G.S.Joglekar, Adv. BMC. CORAM: J.N.PATEL ACTING C.J. AND B.R.GAVAI, J. Judgment Reserved on: 05/01/2010 Pronounced on: 13/01/2010 PC: The petitioner has filed the present petition for writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to reconstruct the petitioner’s structure on land bearing Survey No.17, CTS NO.589, near Ambika Temple, Behind Municipal School, Gandhinagar, Kurla (W), Bombay-70 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit premises”). 2. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the asbestos cement shades at the aforesaid premises. According to the petitioner he received a notice on 12.7.1985 that the said shades should be demolished. He accordingly filed a suit in the City Civil Court against the respondents for injunction. An ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing the suit 1 premises was granted. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 16.12.86 the petitioner’s structure was demolished without prior notice. In this background present petition came to be filed for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The petition is resisted on behalf of respondent No.1 by filing an affidavit in reply by Tahsildar, Kurla on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. It is contention of the respondents that office of the respondents had prepared a list of existing structures and the name of the petitioner was not found i the said list. 4. In so far as the respondent-Municipal Corporation is concerned it is contended that the petitioner had developed the structure in 1981 and therefore it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner that the structure was in existence in 1986 was without any substance. It is also submitted that the tenants in the petitioner’s structures have been granted alternate accommodation for which no proper record is available in the office of the Collector. 5. From perusal of the record it is revealed that this Court vide order dated 2.2.87 has permitted reconstruction of the suit premises as per the ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (b). Vide said order respondents were restrained from taking any action of demolition until disposal of the writ petition. Vide subsequent order dated 4.10.1988 the Court Receiver was directed to take possession of 658 sq. yds. adjacent to an existing structure measuring 33’ x 30’ and deliver the same to the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in pursuance of the aforesaid orders the construction has been carried out and the petitioner has been put in possession of the suit premises as an agent of the Court Receiver. 6. In view of the subsequent events with regard to construction of 2 the petitioner’s structure and the petitioner being put in possession of the same we find that main grievance of the petitioner no more survives. We therefore allow the writ petition by directing the respondents that the construction made on the aforesaid premises vide interim order passed in the present writ petition of which possession has already been handed over to the petitioner would continue to be as reconstructed pursuant to the orders passed in the writ petition. In the result rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (ACTING C.J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.) 3