1 sg IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.588 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.810 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.588 OF 2011 Shyamdhar B. Tiwari ... Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. M.P. Vashi i/by M.P. Vashi & Associates for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 02ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The appellant sued the respondents in the Bombay City Civil Court and applied for ad-interim relief. Their notice of motion has been directed to be registered and the defendants have been directed to file reply on 04.05.2011. That order is challenged. Prima-facie that order is not even appealable. 2. The plaintiff claims that he was in possession of a structure in Sanjay Gandhi National Park on forest land. As per the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.305/1998, all eligible encroachers are directed to be given alternate accommodation upon payment of Rs. 7,000/- per family. The plaintiff has shown a receipt for payment of Rs.7000/-. The plaintiff has to show that he is an eligible encroacher. 2 The plaintiff has produced a photo copy of a list showing his documents as well as the receipt for payment of Rs.7,000/-. 3. The plaintiff claims that his structure has been demolished without following due process. Aside from showing this fact, the plaintiff has not shown even prima-facie that his structure has been demolished. The order of the learned Judge that the reply of the defendants would be required and adjourning the Notice of Motion for that, is correct. The Notice of Motion is pending. 4. The plaintiff may file a further affidavit showing the list showing his name at Sr. No.1 to show that he is an eligible encroacher. The defendants shall file their reply to the Notice of Motion expeditiously. The learned Judge is requested to hear and dispose the Notice of Motion expeditiously. 5. A.O. disposed of accordingly. C.A. disposed of as infructuous. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)