1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 188 OF 2010 Ravilal Rudka Rajput .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Rakesh D. Dave for the petitioner. Ms. G.S. Joglekar for respondent nos. 2 to 5. Mr. S.R. Saudagar for respondent no. 7. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2010. P.C. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner who is constrained to approach this Court on the third occasion. The petitioner states that he has been continuously complaining about an unauthorised construction. The petitioner claims to be the owner of CTS No. 117, 117(1) and 117 (2) which is more particularly described in paragraph 1 of this petition. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent no. 7 is 2 illegally and unauthorizedly trying to encroach upon the petitioner's property bearing CTS No. 117 (2) in collusion with the officers of the Municipal Corporation. He has put up a structure of about 100 sq. ft. on CTS No. 117 (1) in the year 1997. A complaint came to be made by him and on that complaint a notice under section 351 of the BMC Act came to be issued on 19/10/1997. The notice was issued to the petitioner as owner and respondent no. 7 as occupier. Thereupon the unauthorised construction on CTS No. 117(2) was demolished by the concerned Ward Officer. Thereafter petitioner came in exclusive possesson of the subject CTS number. 3. The petitioner's grievance is that after 12 years again respondent no. 7 tried to encroach upon the same CTS number by carrying on illegal and unauthorised construction on the said open plot of land. He constructed room, kitchen and Mori on the common way. Thus, when the petitioner objected to the construction, respondent no. 7 did not stop the same which compelled the petitioner to once again approach the Corporation. The petitioner approached the Corporation by a complaint made on 20.5.2009. No steps were taken to redress that grievance of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that when he approached the Police Station, one Shiv Sena worker Ms. Pushpa Gajanan Thavai, who is the sister-in-law of respondent no. 7, was present and talking to the police personnel. As a result of this, the police personnel also refused to take any action with regard to the on going construction work. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint to the Ward Office and set out all details. None of these complaints were attended to and, therefore, the petitioner moved 3 this Court by filing a writ petition which came up before this Court in May, 2009. The Corporation on notice being issued, made a statement that the illegal and unauthorised work is on the Government land and it cannot do anything. This stand of the Corporation was reflected in their affidavit in reply. When the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the earlier notice issued by the Corporation in respect of the unauthorised construction carried out by the very person on the same land, it appears that the Corporation stated that it would take necessary action. The writ petition was, therefore, disposed off with a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to pass final orders within four weeks. Even that order was not complied with and the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing contempt petition lodging no. 80 of 2009. When the matter came up before this Court for admission, it was stated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai that they have issued notice under section 351 and an order is passed for demolition of illegal and unauthorised construction. The petitioner thereafter pursued the matter and requested the Corporation to implement its own orders which having not been done, that this fresh writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. On this petition also, when notice came to be issued initially, the Corporation sought time to file reply affidavit. When that was not filed after repeated adjournments, it forced us to direct costs to be paid by MMC and then recovered from the Ward Officer personally. That order was recalled because an assurance was given by the learned Senior Counsel that appropriate steps would be initiated including filing of a reply affidavit. 4 Now, our attention is invited by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation to the affidavit of Mr. Devidas S. Kshirsagar, Asstt. Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai, M/East Ward, He has stated in the affidavit that he has taken the charge of the post of Assistant Commissioner M/East ward from 15.5.2010 and he has no factual knowledge but has gone through the record of the case. He states that he has given hearing to the petitioner. He has admitted in the affidavit that a notice was issued with regard to the unauthorised work carried on by respondent no. 7 on CTS No. 117 (2). He stated that this notice came to be issued after the site was inspected by the concerned officer of Building and Factory Department of M/East ward on 1.6.2009. The details of the construction are : Ground plus one floor with B.M. walls and ladi coba admeasuring 36' x 11'.10" and 18'.5" height. He noted that the work of construction of the walls was completed while internal work and doors and windows were not fixed to the structure and as the said work was in progress, notice under section 354A of the MMC Act dated 1.6.2009 was issued to Anandibai Thavai, the owner/occupier of the structure and to the petitioner before us. The notice was replied by Anandibai Thavai and she filed a suit in the City Civil Court being L.C. Suit No. 1206 of 2009 and the Corporation states that on 5.6.2009 an order of status quo in respect of the structure of respondent no. 7 came to be passed. It was further pointed out that the Corporation took steps in pursuance of this Court's order and issued a notice under section 351 of the MMC Act. The notice has been issued to the owner of the land and one Chandrakant Thavai, who is the occupier. Incidentally, Chandrakant Thavai is respondent no. 7 to this petition. There is no explanation in this affidavit as 5 to why notices were not issued earlier and unauthorised structure was not removed. It is also not explained on affidavit as to whether any suit has been filed restraining the Corporation from proceeding to demolish the unauthorised construction done by Chandrakant Thavai, respondent no. 7 before us. The person who is not aware of the facts of this case has filed the affidavit and he seeks to alter the boundary of plot no. 116 and 117. He states that respondent no. 7's structure is not on CTS 117 but on CTS 116. Resultantly, Mr. Dave, appearing for the petitioner, complains that neither of these structures are dealt with on account of the status quo order from the City Civil Court and the Corporation feels helpless in dealing with the situation. 5. We repeatedly inquired from the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation as to how this state of affairs can be corrected, and she informed the Court that the Corporation would take appropriate steps to get the status quo order vacated and thereafter will proceed in accordance with law. We are not satisfied with these statements. We could have pursued the matter further but, in the light of the affidavits that are filed and no assistance forthcoming so as to enable us as to ascertain the extent of the unauthorised construction carried out by both, the respondent no. 7 and his sister-in-law, we deem it fit to dispose of this petition with a direction to the City Civil Court to decide L.C. Suit No. 1206 of 2009 pending before it within a period of three months from today. The suit should be finally disposed off within this period and the Court should not direct the parties to seek any extension of time, instead, it should forward its own report about 6 the progress of the suit. 6. Needless to state that we have not accepted the assertions of the petitioner or the respondent no. 7 nor have we expressed any opinion in so far as the merits of the case are concerned, including whether the boundaries have been ascertained or not and where the structure has been put up. Further, the Court has also not examined the issue as to whether the structure in question is on CTS No. 116 or 117 (2). All parties through their counsel to communicate this order to the concerned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai and extend all cooperation in early disposal of the suit by not seeking unnecessary adjournments. 7. Petition disposed off as above. No costs. (J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)