- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3148 OF 2005 PETITION (L) NO.3148 OF 2005 PETITION (L) NO.3148 OF 2005 Vinod Prabhakar Parkar ...Petitioner vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Jyoti Chavan for the petitioner Ms P.A.Purandare for respondent No.1 Mr.Bhadrashetye i/b M/s.Ghanekar & Co. for Respondent No.2 CORAM CORAM CORAM:H.L.GOKHALE H.L.GOKHALE H.L.GOKHALE & A.S.OKA,JJ. & A.S.OKA,JJ. & A.S.OKA,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 16,2006 : FEBRUARY 16,2006 : FEBRUARY 16,2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Ms Chavan in support of this Petition, Ms Purandare for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Bhadrashetye for respondent No.2. The Petitioner who has filed this Petition claims to be an heir of the original land owner. On the concerned land, a scheme under the provisions of 33(7) of Development Control Regulation is being developed. The Petitioner is seeking to challenge that. He is having one structure on the concerned land viz. Plot No.F.P. 232, Maplawadi, Mahim Mumbai 400 016. 2. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has pointed out that the very Petitioner along with his brothers had filed one Petition earlier viz. W.P.No.2152 of 2002. That Petition came to be dismissed by a Division Bench by observing that the concerned plot is vested in the B.M.C. as per award dated 31st May 1960 in the Town Planning scheme. This being the - 2 - position, it is not possible to entertain this Petition. Petition is dismissed. 3. As far as the structure of the Petitioner is concerned, he is facing eviction proceedings. He has filed an Appeal before the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai. That Appeal will be decided on its own merits. ( H.L.GOKHALE,J.) H.L.GOKHALE,J.) H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (ABHAY (ABHAY (ABHAY S.OKA,J. ) S.OKA,J. ) S.OKA,J. )