1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1130 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1539 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1396 OF 2009 Akram Khan .. Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. .. Respondents Mr. Gulam Rasool Khan for the Appellant. Mrs. K. K. Soran for the Respondent-BMC. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : MARCH 22ND, 2010. P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Respondent Municipal Corporation issued notice under section 314 of Municipal Corporation Act to the Plaintiff/Appellant to remove the unauthorized structure admeasuring 32’ x 20’ on Gandhi Maidan, Near Dhobhi Ghat, 2 Halav Pool, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070. That notice was challenged by the Plaintiff/Applicant by filing a suit wherein he took out a Notice of Motion No. 1539 of 2008 for restraining the Corporation from demolishing the suit structure. As per the reply filed by the Municipal Corporation, the structure is unauthorized and it is on recreation ground or a Maidan reserved for public purpose. The Trial Court rejected the Notice of Motion. 3. On perusal of the documents, it appears that the Plaintiff/Appellant came in picture for the first time in March 2008 when he claims to have purchased one room bearing hut No.G/1, situated at Gandhi Nagar Compound, Near Dhobi Ghat, Halav Pool, A.H. Wadia Road, New Mill Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai 400 070 from one Mr. Rajesh Batiram Valmiki. In fact, he has no sale deed. It is only a notarized affidavit of one Rajesh Valmiki, whereby he claimed to have been sold the said room admeasuring 20’ x 50’ in favour of Ms. Asia Khatun Akram Ali Khan. The next document relied upon by the Plaintiff/Appellant is the Electricity Bill, which is of May 2008. He has produced certain document which only go to show that Rajesh Valmiki had obtained Ration Card since 1991. 3 Incidentally, the document on which the Plaintiff/Appellant relies for refer to the structure within Gandhi Nagar Compound and not on the Gandhi Maidan or recreation ground. There is no document to show that a permission was obtained for construction. At least, there is no documents to show that the structure is existing since prior to 1962 which could be protected. The structure clearly is on recreation ground for which there was never any permission. Therefore, I find no fault with the impugned order rejecting the Notice of Motion. 4. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil Application No. 1396 of 2009 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA, J.) 4