1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.136 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2009 K.R.Jayaprakash ..Appellant V/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.137 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2009 Chhagan B. Dedhia ..Appellant V/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent Mr.A.S.Khatib i/b.M/s.AS Khatib and RS Khatib, Advocate, for the appellant Mrs.Neeta Joglekar, Advocate, for the respondent – MCGM Mr.Virendra T. Dubey for the Intervenor in CAA No.284 of 2009 in AO No.136 of 2009 and CAA No.285 of 2009 in AO No.137 of 2009 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 2 . The above appeals take exception to the Order dated 22nd January, 2009, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai by which order ad-interim reliefs were refused to the appellants/plaintiffs. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition.No.1464 of 2007 in the matter of Ibrahim Abdulla Rehman Khatri Vs. M.C.G.M & ors. The said Ibrahim being the landlord of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act on 27th October, 2007. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner in terms of the directions of the Court held a hearing and pursuant to which hearing the above plaintiffs and the other occupants of the structures of the land in question were called upon to submit the documents in support of their case that their structures were authorized. Thereafter, the plaintiffs and the others filed the documents. In so far as the plaintiffs are concerned, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner after giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs by his Order dated 7th January, 2009, inter 3 alia held that the documents produced by the plaintiffs do not prove the authorization of the structure as in existence prior to the datum line of 1st April, 1962. The plaintiff amongst other documents had produced the letter from the office of the Controller of Slums Bombay & B.S.D under No.DCSP/WS/IV/620 dated 23rd August, 1989 stating that the structure under reference is census one and situated on private slum known as M. M. Road. The documents produced by the plaintiffs were considered by the said Assistant Municipal Commissioner. 3. In so far as the Census Certificate is concerned, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner observed that the Census Certificate of the year 1976 has been cancelled and therefore, Census Certificates have been issued in the year 2000 by the office of the Additional Collector (Encroachment & Removal) M.S.D. W.S.. However, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner held that the Census Certificate produced by the plaintiff could not be relied upon as the said Census Certificate has been cancelled by the said Authority. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said order dated 7th January, 4 2009, passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, filed Long Cause Suit No.130 of 2009 and Long Cause Suit No.133 of 2009 in which the plaintiffs filed the instant Notices of Motion for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from taking action pursuant to the said 351 notice and the Order dated 7th January, 2009. The Trial Court considering the documentary evidence on record as also considering the fact that Census Certificate of the year 1976 was canelled on 15th July, 2000, by the Order of the Competent Authority, came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the ad- interim reliefs. The Trial Court also observed that the documents produced by the plaintiffs do not prove that the said suit structures were in existence prior to the said datum line. 4. Having considered the impugned orders of the Trial Court by which the ad-interim reliefs have been refused as also the documents produced by the plaintiffs which have been considered by the competent authority of the respondent – Corporation, in my view, no case for interference with the impugned orders is made out. The above Appeals are accordingly dismissed. 5 5. The appellants/plaintiffs are however granted two weeks time to remove their goods, from the structures in question. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)