Lsp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2617 OF 2008 Ramdayal M. Yadav ..Petitioner V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ..Respondent Mr. Inderprakash i/b. C.K.Tripathi for the petitioner. Mr. N.A.Shaikh for the resopndent BMC. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : : : 3rd December, 2008 3rd December, 2008 3rd December, 2008 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that some of the documents which were relevant for consideration of the point in issue have been left out from consideration. That has happened on account of mistake of Advocate who submitted reply to the show-cause notice. The argument though attractive, does not take the matter any further. In that, the petitioner is relying on the assessment bill dated 20-1-2000 and payment receipt of the assessment dated 25-1-2000. This document would indicate that structure was assessed on and from 1-4-1980. The petitioner is then relying on the license for keeping cattle which indicates that the date of issue of licence was 31-3-1995. The petitioner in addition is relying on other documents which all pertain 2 to the year after 1976 such as receipt of payment to Government dated 15-12-1976, vaccination certificate dated 2-3-1987 and notice under Section 394(4) dated 1-2-1991. All these documents even accepted at its face value, it is rightly contended on behalf of Corporation that the inference that can be drawn is the structure is in place since 1976. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that the structure is in place since prior to 1962. That fact has not been established from any of the additional documents which the petitioner intends to rely. In so far as other documents are concerned, such as ration card, electric bill and election identity card, the competent authority has already considered the same and discarded on the reasoning that the same do not establish the fact that the structure is in existence prior to 1-4-1962 so as to fall within the datum Line for Regularisation of Commercial Structure. It necessarily follows that the proposed action of the Corporation in relation to structure is appropriate and legal. No fault can be found with the view taken by the respondent corporation in this behalf. As a result, this petition fails. The same is dismissed. 2. At this stage Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given option to move the Corporation for regularisation of the suit structure since there is record to indicate that it is in 3 existence prior to 1995. Counsel for the Corporation points out that the protection granted to structures prior to 1995 is limited to structures standing on area which is declared as slum area. There is no such declaration in respect of area on which the suit structure is located. Besides, the Counsel for the Corporation points out that the petitioner is only a tenant in the structure and is not competent to apply for regularisation on his own. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may pursuade his landlord to apply for regularisation of the structure-which application if made be considered on merits by the Corporation in accordance with law. The petitioner may apply for regularisation within two weeks from today failing which the Corporation will be free to proceed against the suit structure in accordance with law any time thereafter. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]