spb/- 1 cra55-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2011 Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, ... Applicant. through Commissioner, Commissioner’s office, P.C.M.C. Bhavan,Pimpri, Pune -18 V/s. Shashi Manjitsingh Waliya ... Respondent. --- Mr. Sudhir Prabhu for the Applicant. Mr. Mahesh Patil & Sanjay Mishtra i/by Sanjay & Associates for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard. Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the admission stage. 2 The applicant- Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation is raising exceptions to the order passed below Exh. 16 in RC Suit No. 218 of 2010 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akurdi on 16.10.2010. The respondent,original plaintiff, instituted a suit, claiming a decree of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants, its officers, servants, agents or any other persons claiming through them from demolishing spb/- 2 cra55-11.sxw the construction over the suit property without following due procedure of law. The respondent, original plaintiff in a suit, contended that the suit property bearing survey no. 24/1D/1/20, admeasuring about 2 R alongwith 160 sq.ft. constructed in stones, bricks,soil and cement plaster and 798 sq.ft. R.C.C. construction situated at Pimple Nilakh within the limits of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. It is further stated in the plaint that the petitioner is in receipt of a notice as contemplated by section 54 of the M.R.T.P. Act issued by the Municipal Corporation. It is stated that he is not bound by the said notice and the same is ineffective and invalid. The respondent as such proceeded to file a suit, claiming a decree of perpetual injunction and also seeks a restrain order in respect of the cause of action of issuance of the notice at the hands of the defendant/ petitioner herein. An application came to be tendered by the defendant, petitioner herein purported to be an application under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the court to deal with the issue of jurisdiction of the court to try the suit and consider the same before taking up the application tendered by the plaintiff, respondent herein, claiming an order of temporary injunction against the Corporation. It is stated in the application tendered by the petitioner herein, original defendant that challenge raised in the plaint by the plaintiff is to a notice issued under section 54 of the MRTP Act and as such in view of the provisions of section spb/- 3 cra55-11.sxw 149 of the MRTP Act, the suit presented by the plaintiff is not maintainable before the Civil Court. The trial court on considering the arguments advanced by the respective parties, turned down the application and the said order of rejection of the application tendered by the petitioner at Exh. 16 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent at the outset has brought to my notice that the action contemplated at the hands of the Municipal Corporation in pursuance of the notice purported to be issued under section 54 of the MRTP Act relates to some other property. It is contended that the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation is not addressed to the plaintiffs and the survey number, CTS number or even Municipal property number, the area measurement and description or boundaries also do not match with the suit property. Prima facie the contention raised by the respondent herein, original plaintiff appears to be correct. The trial court while considering the application tendered by the plaintiff for an interim injunction Exh. 5 has recorded in para 20 of the judgment as noted below : “20. Perusal of the notice sent by defendant corporation has arise many questions as when the plaintiff’s name, survey number, CTS No. Municipal Property number and spb/- 4 cra55-11.sxw even the description or boundaries or area, measurement nothing matches or co-related by any angel to that of the plaintiff’s property. How come it was served on plaintiff? Even if the sale deed is perused, description of the property is different as that in the notice u/s. 54 sent by defendant corporation. The property described in the suit sale deed and notice is as follows. In suit and sale deed In notice The suit property i.e. all that piece and parcel of the land bearing survey No.24/1D/1/20 admeasuring about 02 R along with 760 sq.ft. construction of stone, brick, soil & cement plaster & 798 sq.ft. R.C.C. construction situated at Pimple Nilakh within the limits of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation bounded as under : On or towards East : Property of Ramgir. On or towards West : Someshwar Sahakari Society, On or towards South : Property of Babanrao Sathe, On or towards North : Road and Property of Gavali & Bhegade. Village Place Measurement- 140 ft X 40ft=3200 sq.ft. On or towards East : Property of Tembhurmkar On or towards West : open place On or towards South : Block road. On or towards North : Property of Patil. ‘Nature of construction -R.C.C. 4 Thus prima facie it appears that the notice issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation relates to a different property and different survey number, municipal house number and a different CTS spb/- 5 cra55-11.sxw number. The notice impugned in the suit, therefore, cannot be construed to be a valid notice under section 54 of the M.R.T.P. Act. Since the notice issued by the Corporation is not as contemplated under section 54 of the Act, the provisions contained under section 149 of the Act, therefore, will not apply to the instant matter. An objection raised by the petitioner herein before the trial court that the suit is not maintainable before the civil court is devoid of substance and it has been rightly turned down by the trial court. 5 For the reasons recorded above, there is no need to cause interference by this court in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The writ petition is devoid of substance. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rules is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. [R.M. BORDE,J]