1 771.11-ao-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 771 OF 2011 Ansuya N. Shinde and others. ... Appellants. V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 772 OF 2011 Tulsabai T. Bhosle and others. ... Appellant. V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another. ... Respondents. Bhavesh Parmar with Devmani Shukla and Jain Sheth and Ms.Sandhya A. Mallagir for the appellants. Ms.K.K.Soran for respondent No.1. P.S.Tiwari for respondent No.2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 22nd November 2011. P.C. : Notice of Motion No.355/2009 taken out in L.C.Suit No. 853/2009 and Notice of Motion No.295/2009 in L.C.Suit No.863/2009 2 771.11-ao-- have been rejected by the trial Court and the said orders of rejection are the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeals from order. 2. It is the contention of the plaintiffs/ appellants herein that unauthorized structures raised by them are on the government land and notices for removal of the structures have been issued by the Collector in the years 2010 and 2011. Whereas it is the contention of the respondents i.e. owner of the property as well as Municipal Corporation that the unauthorized structures raised by the appellants/ plaintiffs are on the private land being C.T.S.No.10/1. The documents i.e. notices issued by the Collector were not placed on record of the trial Court to substantiate the contention of the plaintiffs that the structures are erected on the government land. In para-11 of the impugned orders in both matters, the Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their contention that unauthorized developments are on different property and on government land. It is observed that the documents filed on record by the plaintiffs are relating to different property and different hutments and nothing is filed on record by the plaintiffs to show their possession prior to 1995. The trial Court, therefore, proceeded to rejected notices of motion seeking interim relief. 3. The documents, now, made available along with compilation of documents are in respect of removal of unauthorized developments erected on the government land. The office of the Collector has issued notices to the appellants/ original plaintiffs to remove unauthorized developments. The notices issued by the Collector are contrary to the stand taken by the respondents that the 3 771.11-ao-- unauthorized structures stand on the private property. The issue as to whether the unauthorized developments are on the government land or on the private property needs to be gone into. It would be in the fitness of the thing and furtherance of protecting the interest of the plaintiffs and with a view to safeguard interest of justice to permit the plaintiffs to tender documents on record before the trial Court to show that the structures stand on the government land. The trial Court may scrutinize the documentary evidence that may be placed by the parties and may arrive at a specific finding as to whether the unauthorized developments by the plaintiffs are on the government land or on the private land. The issue needs to be answered by the trial Court so as to decide the notices of motion tendered the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court shall decide the issue whether the unauthorized structures of the plaintiffs stand on the government land or on the private land and reconsider the Notices of Motion Nos. 355/2009 and 295/2009 and pass fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. The trial Court shall render decision on the notices of motion within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The parties shall maintain status-quo as on today during the pendency and disposal of notices of motion. 4. With the above directions, both appeals from order stand disposed of. In view of disposal of appeals from order, pending civil applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)