1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.585 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.89 OF 2007 IN L.C. SUIT NO.4698 OF 2006 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.679 OF 2008 Pushpa Ashok Bhosale & Ors. .... Appellants Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater.... Respondents Mumbai & Ors. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.586 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.88 OF 2007 IN L.C. SUIT NO.4699 OF 2006 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.680 OF 2008 Ramchandra H. Gupta & Ors. .... Appellants Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater.... Respondents Mumbai & Ors. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.587 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.87 OF 2007 IN L.C. SUIT NO.4700 OF 2006 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.681 OF 2008 Vijay Surve & Ors. .... Appellants 2 Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater.... Respondents Mumbai & Ors. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.588 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.91 OF 2007 IN L.C. SUIT NO.4743 OF 2006 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.682 OF 2008 Hukumchand Kapoorchand Raisoni .... Appellants & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater.... Respondents Mumbai & Ors. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.589 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.90 OF 2007 IN L.C. SUIT NO.4744 OF 2006 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.683 OF 2008 Rizwan Ahmed & Ors. .... Appellants Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater.... Respondents Mumbai & Ors. Mr. Suresh Gole i/by Ms. Ms. Savita Suryawanshi Advocate for the Appellants. Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate for Respondent NO.1 (BMC) 3 Mr. B.H. Mehta, AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J Date : 27th August, 2008 P.C. 1. This is a common order on five Appeals from Order which involve identical challenge to the same action. The parties are represented by the same set of lawyers. 2. All the appellants are affected by a project of widening of 60 feet road known as “Shivsrusti” road at Nehru Nagar, Kurla. For the purpose of carrying out the construction of the road, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, `L' Ward issued notice under Section 314 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act calling upon the occupants to remove their respective structures. The appellants therefore filed the respective suits to challenge the notices served upon them. The Collector of Bombay had also issued a public notice in respect of widening of the road calling upon the affected persons to submit documentary proofs of their occupation of the respective structures prior to 1st January,1995 for the purpose of allotting alternate accommodation to them. 3. In the suit as filed originally the reliefs claimed were only against the Mumbai Municipal Corporation 4 in respect of notices under Section 314 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, Later the plaint came to be amended to join respondents No. 2 and 3 as party defendants to the suit with addition of prayers A(1), A(2) and A(3) which relate to allotment of alternate accommodation to the project affected persons. The two contentions which have been raised in the instance appeals on behalf of the appellants are that there has not been proper scrutiny of the documents submitted by the appellants for the purpose of allotment of alternate accommodation to the project affected persons. Consequently some of the appellants did not find their names in the list of the persons to be provided with the alternate accommodation. The second contention is that the project of road widening is complete and there is no need for the appellants to remove their respective structures for the purpose of the project. 4. Mr. Gole, learned counsel for the appellants submits that all the structures which are affected by the road widening project have been in existence since prior to 1st January 1995, therefore all the appellants are entitled to alternate accommodation and unless an alternate accommodation is provided, the Corporation cannot be permitted to carry out the work of demolition of 5 the structures affected by the road widening. It is alleged that the Deputy Collector who had issued public notice did not properly scrutinise the documents submitted by the appellants. After considering the applications, the Deputy Collector found that out of 84 appellants in the five appeals, only 36 appellants were eligible for allotment of alternate accommodation. The Deputy Collector passed his reasoned order considering the respective cases of the appellants. The scrutiny of the order of Deputy Collector shows that he has considered each and every documents submitted by the appellants. It is contended by Mr. Gole, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants that since the suit premises have been in existence, since prior to 1995, all the appellants are entitled to alternate accommodation. However, the policy of the Government does not relate to the length of existence of the structure affected by the road widening. It relates to the length of occupation by the occupier. The policy is that if the project affected person establishes that he is in a possession of said affected premises since prior to 1st January, 1995, he would be entitled to alternate accommodation. Hence even if the structure occupied by a person has been in existence since prior to 1st January, 1995, unless its occupant has come into possession since prior to 1st January, 1995, he would not be entitled to the alternate accommodation. 6 4. Mr. Gole, learned Advocate for the appellants then submits that the appellants have made fresh representation to respondents no. 2 and 3 for allotment of alternate accommodation to them and until those applications are considered, the structures of the appellants should be protected. It is seen that the Deputy Collector has already once considered the applications of the appellants and passed reasoned order allotting alternate accommodation to 36 persons and rejecting the applications of 48 persons. If the appellants desire to have the second round of that consideration, for that purpose the project of road widening cannot be halted. 6. According to Mr. Gole, the entire project of road widening is complete and the appellants structures are not required to be touched. Mrs. Joglekar, learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that widening of the road is complete on only one side with construction of footpath. However, on the other side i.e. on the side of the appellants structures, the work is not yet complete. The Corporation could not complete the work on account of the suits filed by the present appellants. The appellants have produced photographs of the road. The photographs clearly substantiate the contention of the Corporation. The photographs shows that on one side the widening of the 7 road is complete with fixing of the poles for the street- light and foot-path beyond the pole line. Whereas on the other side, that part of the work, is not yet complete. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that project of road widening is complete. Hence, Appeals from Order are dismissed in limine. 7. Certified copy expedited. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)