mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1095 OF 2009 MURLIMAL SHRIKRISHNADAS & CO. PVT. LTD. .. .. PETITIONER Vs. THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPN. & ORS... RESPONDENTS Mr. K. V. Tembe i/b R. D. Sohoni for the petitioners Mr. S. V. Rajeshwar for R-4 to 6 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 17th November, 2009 P.C. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring 8361.30 sq. meters with the structures standing thereon. The said property bears CTS Nos. 407 and 407/1 to 4 and 562 and 562/1 to 11 of village Kanjur. 2. The grievance of the petitioner inter alia is that respondents 4 to 6 who own Unit No. 4 situated in the factory building constructed on the said land have illegally and unauthorizedly constructed one whole floor admeasuring 676.80 thereby consuming illegally and unauthorizedly the FSI of 676.80 sq. meters belonging to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner’s case further is that respondents 1 to 3 i.e. the Bombay Municipal Corporation (“BMC” for convenience) and its officers have failed to perform their statutory obligation under Sections 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and/or under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888. They have failed to take action against respondents 4 to 6. On the last date of hearing, we had directed learned counsel for the BMC. to obtain instructions. Learned counsel states that after we pass the order on 12/11/09 the officers of the 1st respondent have inspected the concerned land and they have found that there is unauthorized construction of mezzanine floor, and AC shed. She further states that respondents 3 to 6 have put an electric transformer in the open space. Learned counsel states that Corporation proposes to issue notice under Section 351 to respondents 3 to 6. She states that the notice will be served on respondents 3 to 6 within two days. This statement is recorded and accepted. 4. In our opinion, it would be appropriate for the BMC to hear the petitioner while adjudicating the notice. We make it clear that on the merits of the case, we have expressed no opinion and notice may be adjudicated upon independently and in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of. 5. We expect the BMC to dispose of the notice as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six months from the date of its service on respondents 3 to 6. 6. The petition is disposed of. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)