IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2492 OF 2009 Shree Swami Narayan Rahivasi Seva Sangh (Regd.) Association ...Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.A.Sawant i/b B.K.Barve & Co. for Petitioners. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr.P.S.Pednekar, Naib-Tahasildar (ENC), Dharavi is present in Court. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 17, 2009. MARCH 17, 2009. MARCH 17, 2009. P.C. 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the interlocutory order passed by the Court below rejecting the request of the Plaintiffs to permit them to examine other Plaintiffs besides Plaintiff No.2 as Plaintiffs’ witness. 2. During the course of hearing, it was suggested to the Counsel appearing for the parties that the question whether the respective suit : 2 : structures (in all 79 in number) standing on the disputed property is authorised or unauthorised is a matter which can be enquired into by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) who is the competent Authority. He will have to give sufficient opportunity to the concerned noticees/occupants to produce relevant documents in support of their stand that the structure occupied by them is authorised or otherwise. 3. Needless to observe that if the structures are found to be put up after 1st January 1995, the same may not be protected in terms of Government Resolution dated 11th July 2001. According to the Plaintiffs, the structure even if put up after 1st January 1995 may be protected in terms of Government Resolution dated 23rd October 2008. The Deputy Collector, however, contends that the latter circular applies to Slum Rehabilitation Schemes and not in respect of encroachments on Government land after 1st January 1995. That is a matter which will have to be addressed by the competent Authority. As a matter of fact, if the Competent Authority was to examine the stand taken by the : 3 : respective Plaintiffs, case by case, on the basis of the documents to be relied upon by them in respect of concerned suit structure, nothing would survive for consideration in the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs before the City Civil Court which is essentially for relief of injunction. In that case, no triable issue will be left in the said Suit. 4. Indeed, if the decision of the Deputy Collector was to be adverse to all or any of the Plaintiffs, the Deputy Collector will have to maintain status-quo for a period of two weeks from the date of service of such adverse order, so that the concerned occupant/noticee would be free to question the correctness of the decision before appropriate forum. This arrangement would meet the ends of justice. The Plaintiffs are willing to abide by this arrangement. 5. The representative of Deputy Collector, who is present in Court assures that the Deputy Collector will start enquiry into each of these case after 28th May 2009 as soon as he is free from : 4 : the election duty and conclude the enquiry in all the 79 cases by end of June 2009. That assurance is accepted. Accordingly, nothing would survive in the pending Suit as well as this Petition. The assurance given on behalf of the competent Authority and the concerned Respondents that till such decision is taken, no precipitative action will be taken in respect of the respective structure claimed to be in occupation of the concerned Plaintiffs is accepted. 6. Needless to observe that the Deputy Collector will have to consider all issues raised in the Suit by the respective Plaintiffs on its own merits in accordance with law. The Petitioners through Counsel assure to take steps to withdraw the Suit pending before the Trial Court in the light of observations made in this order. 7. It will be open to the Respondents to apply to the Trial Court to formally dispose of the Suit on the above terms. This arrangement will obviate lengthy trial, which is avoidable. : 5 : 8. Petition disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.