: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.231 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1847 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1992 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.281 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.231 OF 2008 Ramgopal L. Maurya ....Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corpn.of Br.Bombay & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.R.A. Thorat i/b Mr.O.P. Singh for the Appellant. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar for the B.M.C. Ms.R.C. Nichani with Mr.A.M. Nathani for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. 2. Respondent No.2 is the National Institute of Industrial Engineering, a Government of India Undertaking under the Ministry of HRD. Admittedly pursuant to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, Respondent No.2 is now the owner of the property. The only question is whether the suit structures were : 2 : being constructed at the time when the notice under Section 354-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act dated 26.5.2007 was issued. 3. I will presume that there was a structure in existence earlier. That however, was for stables as even the documents relied upon by the Appellant indicates. I will also presume that the suit is maintainable at the instance of the Appellant although this was disputed by the Respondents. 4. The file of Respondent No.1, B.M.C. contains photographs of the condition of the suit site and structure when the notice under Section 354-A of the B.M.C. Act dated 26.5.2007 was issued and the conditions thereof thereafter. It is clear merely by glancing at the photographs that the work was going on when the notice was issued. 5. Indeed on 26.5.2007 even the side walls with tin sheets had not been put up. At the highest the photographs indicate that there were girders on the sides and on the top which support tin sheets. . Despite the notice, the Appellant continued with the work. The recent photographs indicate the : 3 : extent to which the work was carried out even after the issuance of the notice under Section 354-A of the B.M.C. Act. The entire nature and the use of the structure has changed. The Appellant does not even have a licence for the business that he is carrying on today. 6. Thus even assuming that there was a structure in existence in 1977, the same was pulled down and an entirely new structure was sought to be constructed when the impugned notice was served. This could not have been done without the permission of the authorities. 7. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. All the parties including the Appellant shall maintain status-quo in respect of the suit structure upto and inclusive of 31.7.2008. It is made clear that the Appellant shall not carry out any further work in respect of the structures whether temporary or permanent in any manner whatsoever. Mr.Thorat states that any use of the property shall be only after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities, if necessary. If the same is not done, Respondent No.1 is always at liberty to take action in accordance with law. : 4 : 8. The Civil Application is accordingly dismissed.