: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 CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO. 1780 OF 2008 APPEAL NO. 1780 OF 2008 APPEAL NO. 1780 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4655 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 4655 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 4655 OF 2008 Shri. A. Jayaraman Arumugam. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. R.A. Thorat with Miss. Nikita Trivedi i/b. YKS Legal for the Appellant. Mr. J.J. Xavier for the Respondents. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. : J.H. BHATIA, J. : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008. : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008. : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Appellant, who is the Original Plaintiff, claims to be the owner of the garage situated at 92 Kala Killa, Ashok Silk Mills Compound, Saint Rohidas Marg, Dharavi, Mumbai. On 9.12.2002 the Municipal Corporation issued notice under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act calling upon the Plaintiff/Appellant to show cause why this structure should not be removed as it is on the property acquired by the Municipal Corporation for the public purpose. Instead of filing the reply, the Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 6997 of 2002 challenging the said notice. The suit was contested on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. After hearing the :2: parties, the Trial Court rejected his contention that the notice is illegal. Against that the Plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 3. There is no dispute that the land, on which this structure is situated, was acquired by the Municipal Corporation in 1983 for the sewerage water plant to be developed at Dharavi. The land acquisition was challenged without success. Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by Supreme Court. Review Petition was also dismissed and the acquisition was maintained and confirmed by the Supreme Court. It appears that earlier the Municipal Corporation had issued a notice under Section 314 on 12.8.2002 to the Plaintiff/Appellant in respect of an extension. That notice was challenged by the Plaintiff in Suit No.4718 of 2002. However, that suit was withdrawn in 2005 on the ground that the Municipal Corporation had already demolished that structure covered by that notice. The second notice dated 9.12.2002 covered whole of the structure, which is said to be garage and which is situated on the land acquired by the Municipal Corporation for public purposes. 4. The learned Counsel in the Plaintiff/Appellant contended that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis V/s. Bombay Municipal Corporation (AIR 1986 S.C. 180), ordinarily, the Municipal Corporation should not invoke the powers under :3: Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act because when such powers are invoked the affected party is not given an opportunity of being heard and to show cause as to why his structure should not be removed. He also contends that as held by Their Lordships ordinarily nobody should be condemned, un-heard. However, it needs to be noted that even though the Municipal Corporation proposed to invoke Section 314, it has not removed the structure without any notice. On the contrary it issued the notice to the Respondent to show cause within 48 hours as to why this structure should not be removed. The purpose was to give an opportunity to the Plaintiff to prove whether he has any right, title or interest in the land or property thereon or whether he was otherwise entitled to some protection but neither he approached the Municipal Corporation nor he replied the notice nor he sought an extension of time for the purpose of giving reply. Even though period of about six years has passed so far the Plaintiff has not come forward with any document to show his legal right, title or interest on the land or right of protection under any law or rules. 5. The learned Counsel Mr. Xavier for the Municipal Corporation pointed out that in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay V/s. Premnagar Zopadpatti Committee Society (1991 Suppl.(2) Supreme Court Cases 712) the Lordships held that removal of encroachment from land acquired by the Municipal Corporation for public purpose, :4: such as, establishing nursing college, medical college, primary school, garden, etc. by invoking Section 314 is justified. This authority is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case where the land was acquired by the Municipal Corporation for public purpose and after acquisition of the said property, the Plaintiff has encroached upon the same and raised a structure. 6. In these circumstances, I do not find any fault with the dismissal of the suit. Therefore, appeal shall stand dismissed. 7. As appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil Application does not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks protection to the structure for some time. Request is rejected. (J.H. (J.H. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) BHATIA,J.) BHATIA,J.)