1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 604 OF 2009 Kirtivallabh Veljibhai Thakkar ...Appellant Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Ms. Prachi Khandge i/b Ms. M.P. Vashi & Associates, for the Appellant. Ms. R.A. Sowraan, for Respondent No.1-Corporaton. Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ..... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 13 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. Appellant’s case is that the trial court has failed to take into consideration the order passed by this court and, if it was of the opinion that the eligibility for alternate Accommodation is to be decided by original Defendant No.3, then, all the more, no effect could not have been given to the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation and its Officer who are Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the suit. Therefore, ad-interim relief as claimed vide prayer clause (a) ought to have been granted. 2. This matter was placed before me yesterday and I had permitted the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation to seek instructions. She states that although the Plaintiff’s claim is that he has two 2 shops in his possession viz. Shop Nos.529 and 530 at Survey no.9, Hissa No.2, Tiwari Industrial Estate, Ram Mandir Road, Near Oshiwara Bridge, Goregaon (West), Mumbai the competent authority has found that the Petitioner is eligible for one shop/gala only. She submits that the documents with regard to one shop have already been produced and therefore the said shop will be offered before demolition of the suit structure. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Appellant submits that the order passed by this court on the earlier occasion is clear. The learned single Judge in his order has observed that it is the Dist.Dy. Collector who is competent authority to decides the issue of eligibility. The competent authority must decide it and appropriate action under the relevant statute must be initiated before demolition. That order has not been complied with and therefore, the trial court ought to have granted ad- interim injunction as prayed. 4. After this matter argued for some time and finding that there is no dispute with regard to entitlement of the Appellant in so far as one shop/gala is concerned, interest of justice wold be served if as and by way of interim measure it is directed that the structure in occupation of the Plaintiff shall not be demolished for a period of three weeks within which period the District Deputy Collector, the original Defendant No.3, shall examine the eligibility of the Appellant/applicant with regard and 3 shops/structures and if relevant documents are produced he should pass appropriate order within this period. 5. To enable the Appellant/Applicant to appear before the competent authority and the competent authority to render its decision, for a period of Three weeks Plaintiff’s existing structure shall not be demolished. That shall not preclude Appellant/Plaintiff from taking possession of one shop offered by the Defendants and even if it is taken by him this would not prejudice his claim for second gala/shop. 6. The appeal stands disposed of with these directions. No costs. 7. Since the appeal is disposed, the civil application does not survive. 8. When it is directed by me that the Appellant can take possession, it means that the Appellant will be put in possession of the shop to which he is entitled and Corporation will take possession of the present gala/structure so that after it is demolished the Nallah can be widened. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)