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 APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 26 OF 2007 FROM ORDER NO. 26 OF 2007 FROM ORDER NO. 26 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2007 Bechoo Antu Yadav. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. ... Respondent. AND APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 27 OF 2007 FROM ORDER NO. 27 OF 2007 FROM ORDER NO. 27 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2007 Kushiram Tekaram Jaiswal @ Kanojia ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. ... Respondent. AND APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 28 OF 2007 FROM ORDER NO. 28 OF 2007 FROM ORDER NO. 28 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2007 Harkoo Bihagar Gupta. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. ... Respondent. AND APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 29 OF 2007 FROM ORDER NO. 29 OF 2007 FROM ORDER NO. 29 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2007 Laxmiram Jeeta Gupta. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. ... Respondent. B.P.Shukla for the appellant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12th January 2007. 12th January 2007. 12th January 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . I find no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. Having recorded a finding that the land in question is not declared as slum area and that no notification under section 4(1) of the Slum Act has ever been issued pertaining to the suit land, the question of getting benefit of the Government Policy, which is related to the lands declared as slum and public lands, cannot be of any avail to the appellant. Interestingly, the plaintiff has not even bothered to implead the owner of the land which, undisputedly, is a private land. 2. In that view of the matter, the Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the appellant. No interference is warranted. All the appeals are dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeals, civil applications do not survive. The same are also dismissed as infructuous. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, A.M.KHANWILKAR, A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. J. J.)