1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.871 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2058 OF 2009 IN L.C.SUIT NO.2863 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1155 OF 2011 Shri Ramdutt J. Mishra ...Appellant. v/s. The B.M.C. ...Respondents. Mr. S.K.Dubey ,adv. For the Appellant. Ms S.K.Soran, adv. For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 9, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff against dismissal of the notice of motion seeking temporary injunction against the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation on 20.8.2009 under Section 351 and the order passed thereon. 3 As per the notice, plaintiff/appellant has made unauthorised structure with brick masonary wall and AC sheet roof with rolling shutter admeasuring approximately 5.9 m X 5.1 m with average height of 2.7 mtrs. in the open space adjacent to building known as Minu Minar. 2 Plaintiff is running hotel called Swahambur hotel and the property is assessed as per no.K 618 24A. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant points out that the structure with the said assessment number was in existence atleast since 1967 when it was occupied by Ibrahim Mohammed from whom he claims to have purchased said structure under deed of assignment dated 11th August, 1978. The document appears to be registered. The assignment deed does not give dimensions of the structure, which was purchased by the plaintiff but it shows that area of the structure was approx. 17 sq.mtrs. As per the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation, total area of the structure is approximately 30 sq.mtrs. which is much more than area, which was allegedly purchased by the plaintiff . In view of this, it is difficult to give any protection to the plaintiff about complete structure. At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant contends that taking into consideration documents referred above, whole of the structure could not be unauthorised and may not be demolished because at least 17 sq.mtrs. structure was in existence in 1967 and possibly even before that. The learned counsel seeks to withdraw the appeal, application as well as the suit with liberty to approach the Municipal Authorities for regularisation of the structure, which he had purchased and makes a request that till his 3 application for regularisation is decided, some protection may be given to him. 4 In view of the above, appeal, application as well as L.C. Suit No.2863 of 2009 pending before the City Civil Court stand disposed off as withdrawn with liberty to the plaintiff/appellant to make an application/representation to the concerned officer of the Municipal Corporation for regularisation of the structure, atleast to the extent of 17 sq.mtrs. which he had purchased under the assignment deed. If such application is moved within four weeks from this date, the concerned officer shall decide the same within six weeks thereafter and till decision of such application/representation, the Municipal Corporation shall not act upon the notice dated 20.8.2009. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)