:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2628 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 2628 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 2628 OF 2008 Tajimal Alimohammed Sheikh & Ors. ..Petitioners versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Rakesh Kumar i/b. Mr. D. K. Shukla for the Petitioners. Ms. A. R. Joshi for the BMC. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The petitioners seek to challenge Notice dated 31.7.2008 issued under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, for carrying out unauthorised development of a structure of a temporary nature of the description given overleaf. The description shows that the petitioners have carried out construction of a shed with wooden plank and A.C. sheet roof of the dimensions indicated of 14.40 m x 5.40 m x 3.30 m (h). The petitioners showed cause to the notice by their letter at Exhibit ’I’ which was served upon the Corporation on 7.8.2008. The Respondent Corporation then by its letter dated 23.9.2008 :2: called upon the petitioner No. 1 to produce the documents within a period of 7 days in support of his claim. Petitioners produced three documents, viz. (i) Zerox copy of Agreement dated 26.4.2007 by which he allegedly purchased the structure, (ii) zerox copy of a death certificate, and (iii) zerox copy of licence for keeping cattle. The Assistant Commissioner R/South Ward considered all the three documents and held that none of them establish authorisation of the disputed structure. By his order dated 4.10.2008 he called upon the petitioner to demolish the disputed structure within a period of 15 days of the order. 2. Beyond the above three documents, produced before the Assistant Commissioner, R/South Ward, the petitioners have nothing more to produce before this court. The three documents cannot establish authorisation of the structure in question. Since the disputed structure is out and out unauthorised structure there cannot be any relief for its protection. Hence the Petition is dismissed in limine. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) :3: (Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)