-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.37 OF 2000 APPEAL NO.37 OF 2000 APPEAL NO.37 OF 2000 Shantabai Hanumani Wali ...Appellant vs. Chief Land Survey Officer & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the Appellant Mr.C.M.Lokesh for the Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : JANUARY 18,2008 : JANUARY 18,2008 : JANUARY 18,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates for the parties. The Appeal is by the original plaintiff. A suit for declaration and injunction filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the trial court. The case of the Appellant-plaintiff was that the suit house bearing No.755 situated at Village Kopri Taluka and district Thane was in her possession for last more than 12 years and the suit structure was constructed after obtaining permission of the Grampanchayat. It is the case of the original Appellant-plaintiff that in November 1994 an application was made for regularization of the structure to the first Respondent. A case is made out that without giving a reasonable opportunity of getting the structure regularised, a notice of demolition was issued by the Respondent. Therefore, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed. 2. The suit was contested by the Respondents by pointing out -2- that the as a consequence of acquisition in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act,1894 the land below suit structure vests in the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. It was pointed out that an earlier suit was filed by the Applicant-plaintiff which has been dismissed. The trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the Appellant-plaintiff has no title. The said finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. 3. After having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, I find that no case is made out for interference. The appellant could not lead any evidence to establish her title over the suit property and to prove that the structure was authorised. In fact a letter was produced which is signed by the Appellant-plaintiff by which she had sought regularisation of the encroachment. 4. Considering all these aspects, the courts below and especially the Appellate Court have held that the Appellant-plaintiff was a trespasser. 5. Considering the findings recorded by the courts below, there was every justification for declining the equitable relief of declaration. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. -3- 6. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that in case there is a policy of the State Government to regularise the unauthorised structures in existence in 1995, the right of the Appellant to apply for regularization should not be taken away. It is clarified that notwithstanding the dismissal of the Appeal, it is always open for the Appellant to apply for regularization as per the policy, if any, of the State Government. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE