1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.418 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.506 OF 2006 Rajesh Malkit Singh Gade. ..Appellant. V/s. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corpn. ..Respondent. Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar i/b. R.C.Kaushik for appellant. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar for BMC. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JUNE 28, 2006. DATE : JUNE 28, 2006. DATE : JUNE 28, 2006. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents. 2. I find no substance in this appeal. The Court below has rightly held that the order of demolition passed by the authority was legitimate. The authority after issuing notice under section 351 of the Act to the appellant gave opportunity to the appellant. In turn, the appellant merely submitted census certificate to substantiate that the suit structures are authorised structures. It is obvious that the census certificate alone cannot be the basis to take the view that the suit structures are 2 authorised structures. Something more was required to be produced by the appellant namely, the city survey plan, assessment bill, approved plan etc. That has not happened in the present case. In so far as census certificate is concerned, the authority has rightly found that the same is of no avail for the simple reason that the structures prescribed in the census certificate did not tally with the structures specified in the suit notice. Besides, the census certificate is not in the name of the appellant. 3. Be that as it may, as mentioned earlier the census certificate alone cannot be the basis to take the view that the suit structures are authorised structures. Even before the Civil Court when the action is challenged, the appellant/plaintiff has not produced any document to substantiate the position that the suit structures are authorised structures. If it is so, no fault can be found with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Court below in dismissing the Notice of Motion and refusing the interim relief during the pendency of the suit. 4. The counsel for the appellant would however, contend that some other reasons have weighed with the trial Court in deciding the notice of motion, amongst 3 others, that the suit structures were required to be demolished in terms of order passed by the Division Bench of this court in some Public Interest Litigation. Secondly, that the order of 13th January, 2006 passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, on which basis the action of demolition proceeded, has not been challenged in the suit. In my opinion, even if these two reasons are mentioned in the order, the finding of fact as recorded in the impugned order, will not vitiate the ultimate conclusion reached by the trial Court. The trial Court nevertheless, has adverted to the fact that there was no material on record to accept the claim of the appellant that the suit structures were authorised or protected structures. So far that finding is concerned, the same is unexceptional. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence appeal as well as civil application dismissed.