( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO.580 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.580 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.580 OF 2009 Placida Dharmai and Anr. ..Appellants V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr. ..Respondents ...... Mr. R.R. Sharma for the appellants Mr. J.Xavier for respondent-BMC ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8th May, 2009 DATED : 8th May, 2009 DATED : 8th May, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. As the appeal was called out, learned advocate Mr.Sharma appearing on behalf of appellants upon instructions made a statement that the structures covered by the impugned notice are in existence as of today. Based on this statement, the appeal is being taken up for hearing. 2. This first appeal can be disposed of at the stage of final hearing in view of the arguments advanced across the bar and submission made by learned advocate for the appellants that appellants want to submit proposal for regularization in regard to the structures. 3. The Corporation issued notice under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to the ( 2 ) appellants in the year 2004. The Corporation followed the procedure in regard to the said notice and the Assistant Commissioner, H/West Ward passed an order thereby holding that the structures covered under notice under Section 351 are illegal. These structures shall hereinafter referred to as the "impugned structures" being 3 in number. The appellants aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation instituted L.C. Suit No.1580 of 2006 in the Court of City Civil Court, Bombay so as to challenge the notice under Section 351 as well as the decision of the Corporation. Learned Judge of the City Civil Court heard and decided the said suit by judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2008 and dismissed the suit. This judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2008 is challenged in this first appeal. 4. After certain arguments were advanced by learned advocate Mr.Sharma on behalf of appellants. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma upon instructions from the appellants submitted that the appellants are interested in submitting proposal for regularization of the impugned structures. He submitted that some time be given to the appellants to submit the proposal through an architect to unable the appellants to consider the same and decide the matter. He submitted that the impugned structures should be protected till such time the application is being filed and for some ( 3 ) time thereafter if the decision in the case is against the appellants. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Xavier for the respondent Corporation submitted that this submission on the part of the appellants goes to indicate that the appellants are not proceeding the appeal on merits. Considering the request made by the appellants, the request can be granted and the first appeal is being disposed of by passing following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . The appellants are free to submit a proposal for regularization in respect of the impugned structures covered by impugned notice under Section 351 of the Corporation Act. Such a proposal shall be submitted directly to Executive Engineer, Building and Proposal, West Suburbs, having its office at Bandra through an architect. Such a proposal should be submitted on or before 30th June, 2009. If such proposal is submitted on or before 30th June, 2009, the Corporation shall consider the said proposal on merits, arrive at a decision and communicate the decision to the appellants and their architect. Upto 30th June, 2009 the Corporation shall not demolish impugned ( 4 ) structures. If the proposal is filed as aforesaid on or before 30th June, 2009 till such time, the said proposal is decided and the decision of the Corporation is communicated to the appellant No.1 and architect of the appellants, the Corporation shall not demolish the impugned structures. If the decision goes against the appellants, the Corporation shall not demolish the impugned structures for a period of 15 days from the date of service of decision of the Corporation upon appellant No.1 or architect whichever is earlier. . If the appellants do not submit proposal on or before 30th June, 2009, it will be taken that the appellants are not interested in filing the proposal for regularization and the judgment and decree delivered by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 20th December, 2008 in L.C. Suit No.1580 of 2006 shall stand confirmed without any further order from this Court and the first appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs and the Corporation will be free to demolish the impugned structures. . Civil Application No.1145 of 2009 ( 5 ) stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)