1 WP 4607/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4607 OF 2011 Vimal Kisan Laple & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. B. Unnikrishnan for the petitioners. Mr. Zal Andhyarujina with Mr. Parag Sharma i/b Mr. Ravi Thankainan for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 29TH JUNE 2011 P.C. : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 27th January 2011 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, allowing an application made by respondent no.3 for joining him as a party to the suit. 2. The petitioners claim to be in possession of a structure constructed on a portion of the land bearing CTS No. D/914 of village Khardanda, Taluka Andheri. On 11th February 2010, the Municipal Corporation issued a notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act asking them to show cause 2 WP 4607/2011 why the unauthorised structure erected by them on the property should not be demolished. After considering the cause shown, the Assistant Commissioner, F-West Ward, exercising the delegated powers of the Commissioner, passed an order directing the petitioners to remove the structure within 15 days failing which the same would be removed by the Municipal Corporation. The petitioners thereafter filed a suit bearing L.C. Suit No. 2139 of 2010 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, challenging the notice dated 11th February 2010 and the order dated 6th October 2010 as bad in law, null and void and for an injunction restraining respondent nos.1 and 2 from taking any action on the basis of the said notice and the order. 3. Respondent no.3 appeared in the suit by making an application under Order 1 Rule 10 for joining him as party to the suit contending that he was the owner of the land bearing CTS No. D/914 and therefore he should be joined as a party to the suit. The application was allowed. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.3 is not the owner of the land bearing CTS No. D/914, but it is a Government land and stands in the name of the 3 WP 4607/2011 Collector in the revenue records No document to show that the Collector was the owner of the land bearing CTS No. D/914 was produced before the trial Court nor is it produced before me. Some documents which have been produced before me ex facie do not relate to the land bearing CTS No. D/914 as different numbers have been mentioned in the said documents. On the basis of the said documents it cannot be inferred at this stage that the Government is the owner of the land bearing CTS No. D/914. On the other hand, the respondents have produced a consent decree in Suit No. 3907 of 1996 passed by this Court. By the said consent decree, the respondent no.3 became the owner of the land mentioned in the schedule to the consent decree. The schedule shows one the properties to be CTS No. D/914. Thus there is a prima facie material to show that the respondent no.3 is the owner of the land bearing CTS No. D/914. 5. In Ranjitsingh Linga vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2010(2) Mh. L.J. 703, this Court has taken a view that in a suit for injunction filed by an occupier against the Municipal Corporation against demolition of an unauthorised construction, the owner may be joined a party to the suit. In the light of the said decision, I am of the view that the trial Court committed no 4 WP 4607/2011 error in allowing the application made by the respondent no.3 to be joined as a party to the suit. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)