ssp 1 WP 1293 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1293 OF 2010 Shiv Prakash Raj Kishor Singh and Ors. .....Petitioners versus Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.A.C.Singh i/by Mr.D.R.Shah, for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Singhavi, Senior Advocate with Ms.K.R.Panjabi, for respondent- Corporation. Mr.F.Devitre, Senior Advocate with Ms.Pooja Kshirsagar i/by I.C.Legal, for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 24th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. By way of this petition, petitioners have prayed that respondent-Corporation may be directed to take appropriate action of the demolition of the construction carried out by respondent No.2, which is contrary to the notice issued by the Corporation. It is the say of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has carried out construction contrary to the IOD condition and has not constructed compound wall, which was the part and parcel of the IOD condition. 2. The above petition is resisted by the respondents. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioners are the co-lessees of the adjoining property and civil suit is already filed by them against the ssp 2 WP 1293 of 2010 petitioners challenging the conveyance by which petitioners have purchased the property. However, learned counsel for the petitioners states that they are the lessees and original owners and the respondent No.2 are not the owners. 3. It is not necessary to examine the above aspects, as learned counsel for respondent-Corporation states that as on today, no construction is permitted in the restricted area. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that a joint survey has already been carried out as back as in June 2010 and the Corporation is awaiting the report/MR plan from the Survey Officer. The Corporation shall act accordingly after receiving the report from the Survey Officer. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that it is true that initially stop work notice was given, but subsequently it was withdrawn when it was noticed that the construction in question is not carried out in the restricted area. Considering the said fact, the concerned Survey Officer is directed to submit its report in any case within a period of three months from today. The Corporation may act on the basis of such MR plan in accordance with law. It is now not necessary to examine other issues raised in the petition. If any of the parties have any grievance in respect of the report/MR plan submitted by the Survey Officer, it will be open to them to adopt appropriate proceedings in this behalf in ssp 3 WP 1293 of 2010 accordance with law. It is needless to say that respondent No.2 shall also act as per the MR plan/report submitted by the City Survey Officer and may carry out construction of compound wall as per MR plan submitted by the Survey Officer, subject to their right to challenge the same in case they are aggrieved. 5. In view of what is stated above, writ petition is disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )