IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1554 OF 1995 Mr. Mohmed Yusuf Jelani Indian Inhabitant residing at Hutment Colony, North Side of Mitha Nagar, Municipal School, Goregaon (West), Bombay 400 062. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, having its office at Mahapalika Marg, Bombay 400 001. 2. The Tahsilkar (E.N.C.) Malad/Borivli having his office at Room No.38, 1st floor, Siddarth Nagar, Goregaon (West), BOmbay 400 062. ... Respondents Ms. Sangita Lidkar i/by Ms. N.P. Karnik for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Jogalekar for the BMC. Mr. Milind More, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner claims that he should be provided with an alternative accommodation as he was in possession of the premises which were partly constructed of tin-sheets and partly of wooden planks with cement asbestos sheet roof since 1981. The petitioner claims to have photo pass and his name appeared in the electoral roll in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, 1983. According to the petitioner, under the policy of the State, he is entitled to resettlement of hutment. 2. The Corporation has filed the reply. In para 4 of the reply, it is stated as under: "4. I say that the structure of the petitioner has been demolished in or about December, 1994 which was existing on the road, which were demolished several times in the past. I say that it appears that the petitioner had also filed suit No.7727 of 1994 in the City Civil Court at Bombay challenging the said public notice, however, the petitioner has not served the said suit and the notice of motion taken out in the said suit upon the respondents, since the same is not entered in the registers maintained by the respondents for that purpose. I say that the Petitioners has also not annexed public notice to this writ petition, which he has challenged in the said suit. I say that these respondents have after following proper due process of law under Section 314 of the B.M.C. Act has demolished the structure of the petitioner which was on the road. I deny that the petitioner has constructed a make-shift of plastic roof near the earlier hutment site after the said demolition, as averred in para 4 of the said petition, and I hereby put the petitioner to the strict proof thereof. I say that after the demolition of the said structure no new structur3e has been erected by the petitioner." 3. The averments made in the reply affidavit have not been controverted. Significantly, the petitioner had filed a suit being L.C. Suit No.7727 of 1994 but does not fully disclose as to what has happened to the said suit. The suit structure was admittedly demolished in December 1994 whereas this petition is filed in August, 1995. According to the Corporation, the structure was on the road and has been demolished by resorting to section 314 of the Act. No protection is available to such structure. Besides, the petitioner has not produced any census number of the structure given by the Authority. It is noticed that the petitioner is using different addresses in different documents. The respondent-Corporation is relying on the photograph of the structure to substantiate that it was located on the road. Taking overall view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere in this petition and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.