- 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 FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.168 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.168 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.168 OF 2005 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.195 OF 2005 FROM ORDER NO.195 OF 2005 FROM ORDER NO.195 OF 2005 Dattaram Lavu Kotkar ...Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent Mr.S.B.Prabhawalkar h/f Manoj Mhatre for the Appellant Ms Geeta Joglekar for the Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 14,2005. : MARCH 14,2005. : MARCH 14,2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. Respondent waives service. 2. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties. The suit filed by the Appellant arises out of notice under Section 351 of M.M.C.Act, 1888 and the order passed thereon. In the reply filed by the Appellant to the notice under Section 351, a specific contention has been raised that the suit structure is situated on Government land and therefore, as per the existing policy, the structure cannot be demolished. After the said reply is filed, an order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Respondent-Corporation on 24th January 2005. On the face of it, the case made out by the Appellant based on the policy of the State Government, is not considered by the Assistant Commissioner and he has recorded only one finding that the structure is unauthorised and there was no evidence - 2 - to show that it was existing before the datum line i.e.1st April 1962. Thus while passing order the main contention raised in the Reply is not considered. 3. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and order shows that this aspect is not considered by the learned Trial Judge and he has come to the conclusion that the policy relied upon is applicable only to the slum area. 4. Till disposal of the Appeal, parties will maintain status quo as of today in all respects. Notwithstanding the interim order passed by this Court it will be open for the Respondent-Corporation to consider the reply filed by the Appellant to the notice under Section 351 of M.M.C.Act, 1888 and to pass a fresh order. In case the Assistant Commissioner of Respondent-Corporation desires to pass a fresh order, he will give a notice to that effect to the Appellant. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. 5. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.