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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.494 of 2009. FIRST APPEAL NO.494 of 2009. FIRST APPEAL NO.494 of 2009. Gokul Karamshi Patel ..Appellant versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority ..Respondents Mr.J.J.Shah for the appellant Ms.S.P.Manchekar for the respondent No.1 Mr.J. Xavier for the respondent No.2 B.M.C. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 23rd April, 2009. DATED : 23rd April, 2009. DATED : 23rd April, 2009. P.C. 1. The respondent No.2 issued notice under Section 155 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), dated 22.7.2001 calling upon the appellant to comply with the contents of the notice, failing which it was also mentioned in the notice that the structure would be removed. The appellant instituted Long Cause Suit No.4243 of 2001 in the City Civil Court, Bombay at Dindoshi. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court (hereafter referred to as the learned trial Judge) decided the suit by judgment and decree dated 18.2.2009 against the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 18.2.2009, the appellant has filed -2- the present first appeal. 2. As the matter was called out, learned Advocate Mr. J.J.Shah appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the respondent No.1 has already regularised the suit structure and the suit structure is an offending structure in the eyes of respondent No.2. Learned Advocate Mr.J.J.Shah submitted that the appellant is desirous of making application for regularisation to the respondent No.2 in regard to the structure so that the respondent No.2 shall consider the application on merits. 3. Learned Advocate Mr.Shah submitted that in the past an application for regularisation was made and the sum of Rs.25,000/- was deposited with the Assistant Engineer, Building and Factory K West Ward, and that till today the appellant has not heard anything positively from the Corporation. 4. In my view, if the appellant is interested in making an application for regularisation which ought to have been done in proper format through Architect. In such a case, in the interest of justice an opportunity can be given to the -3- appellant so that he can take steps for regularisation of the structure and the suit structure will have to be protected for certain time as set out in the order below to see that the structure is not demolished till such time the application is attended to. 5. Learned Advocate Mr.Shah submitted that the amount of Rs.25,000/- which is deposited with the Corporation, the said amount can be used as fees. In reply to this, the learned Advocate Mr.Xavier informed the Court that the said amount of Rs.25,000/- must have been forfeited. The learned Advocate Mr.Xavier submitted that the amount was deposited way back in the year 2001 and that the said amount must have been forfeited by the Corporation. In so far as this aspect this concerned, since a new proposal through a regular architect is being submitted after the appellant has lost in the Court, the appellant will have to pay the charges afresh. 6. In the circumstances mentioned aforesaid, the First Appeal is disposed of by passing the following Order. -4- ORDER i. If the appellant is desirous of filing an application for regularisation of the suit structure, the appellant may do so. The appellant shall file a regular proposal for regularisation through an Architect. The said proposal shall be addressed to the Executive Engineer, Building and Proposal, Western Suburb, Bandra, Bombay. The said proposal shall be submitted in the office of the aforesaid Officer on or before 19.6.2009. ii. The appellant shall also deposit with the Corporation necessary charges alongwith the said proposal. Once the proposal is submitted, the Corporation shall consider the same on merits and communicate its decision to the appellant. If the proposal is submitted on or before 19.6.2009, the Corporation shall not act upon the impugned notice under Section 55 till the said proposal is considered and service of the said decision of the Corporation upon the appellant and two weeks thereafter. If the appellant fails to submit the proposal by 19.6.2009 it shall be treated that the appellant is not interested in submitting the proposal. On or after 21.6.2009 the Corporation is -5- free to take appropriate action against the appellant in terms of the impugned Notice as non submission of the proposal will amount the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.2.2009. iii. The First Appeal stand disposed of in above terms with no Order as to costs. iv. In view of the above, Civil Application No.1578 of 2009 stands disposed with no Order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)