1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.1519 OF 2007 Premnath Ramlal Kanojia ..Petitioner. Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay ..Respondent. .... Mr. S.K. Dubey for the Petitioner. Ms. S. Anith Kumar for the Respondent. .... CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Date : 17th January, 2008. P.C. (Per Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has impugned the correctness of an order passed on 17th April, 2007 by the Assistant Commissioner, “L” Ward. The Petitioner claims to be in occupation of premises at Punjabi Chawl, Bail Bazar, M. M. Road, Kurla, Mumbai 400 070 in which a laundry business is being carried on. Among the documents on which reliance has been placed is a communication dated 2nd April, 1968 informing the predecessor in interest of the Petitioner of the unauthorized occupation of government land and seeking to levy damages for such use and occupation. The letter, however, specifies that the encroachment would not be treated as 2 having been regularized. The second letter dated 4th June, 1979 is a communication by the Additional Collector to the predecessor in interest of the Petitioner purporting to regularize the unauthorized occupation admeasuring 86.370 sq. yds. subject to the observance of certain terms and conditions. The third letter is a communication dated 30th May, 2003 from the Assistant Commissioner, 'L' Ward granting the application of the Petitioner for carrying out repairs to the premises subject to the condition that no RCC work would be permitted and that the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the structure should not be altered. The dimensions have been referred to in the permission as being 38' 6” x 20' 3”. Finally, there is a letter dated 2nd November, 2000 referring to the assessment of a property which is described as bearing ward No. L-3868 (1B) from 31st March, 1962 and to the present ratable value. 2. One Shri Gajanan Rane had instituted writ proceedings before this Court (Writ Petition 2593 of 2005) complaining of an encroachment made by the Petitioner in the open space. The Petitioner was impleaded as the Fourth Respondent to the earlier proceedings. The Petition was disposed of by this Court on 31st 3 January, 2006 with a direction to the Municipal Corporation to decide the representation submitted by the Petitioner in those proceedings after hearing him as well as the Fourth Respondent to those proceedings (the Petitioner herein). The Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit in reply explaining the background of the matter and the circumstances in which the Assistant Commissioner passed his order dated 17th April, 2007 which is impugned in these proceedings. The Petitioner had submitted an application for carrying out repairs to his room in which the business of a laundry was being carried out. Permission was granted on 30th May, 2003 subject to the conditions stated therein. The grievance of Shri Gajanan Rane, who had moved the earlier writ proceedings before this Court was that the Petitioner had carried out an encroachment. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Petitioner herein was also duly heard. The competent authority directed the Engineer concerned to prepare a sketch after inspection at site and upon taking measurements of the area in the possession of the present Petitioner. Pursuant thereto the site was visited by the concerned officers of the Municipal Corporation. Thereafter a further meeting took place before the Assistant Commissioner, 'L' Ward at which the sketch of the property under 4 reference was placed on the record. The measurements taken at site showed that the existing area of the structure belonging to the Petitioner was 90.44 sq. yds. as against the area of 86.37 sq. yds. which was reflected in the order of the Additional Collector dated 4th June, 1979. This, according to the Corporation clearly indicated that the Petitioner had encroached upon the open space between his structure and the adjoining structure. The Petitioner was accordingly directed to reduce his structure to the original area by carrying out necessary changes. 3. From the material on the record it emerges that even according to the Petitioner the area of his premises was 86.37 sq. yds. and not more. This is also evident from the letter dated 4th June, 1979 of the Additional Collector, Exhibit B to the Petition. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 31st January, 2006 in Writ Petition 2593 of 2005 the site was inspected and measured and it was found that the existing area of the structure in the occupation of the Petitioner was 90.44 sq. yds. as against the original area of 86.37 sq. yds. noted in the letter of the Additional Collector dated 4th June, 1979. In these circumstances, the Municipal Corporation cannot be faulted for coming to the 5 conclusion that the Petitioner had unauthorizedly extended the area of his structure by encroaching upon the open space between his structure and the adjoining structure. The Petitioner was accordingly directed by the Assistant Commissioner to reduce the extent of his structure so as to bring it in conformity with the original area. We do not find any reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Municipal Corporation followed due process of law. In any event, this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 would not be justified in entertaining a dispute which raises a pure question of fact. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the Petition which shall accordingly stand dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.