-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6003 OF 2008 Ramkaran Kurmuri Yadav .. Petitioner. V/s. 1. Municipal Corporation of Brihan- mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Anil Shah i/by D.R.Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. A.K.Nandanwan for the Respondent No.1-BMC. --- CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR,J. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. In my opinion, the court below has rightly exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent no.2 by granting prayer for amendment of the plaint by applying the correct principles of law. The claim of respondent no.2 is that he is the owner of the disputed land. The corporation has initiated action in respect of the structure on the said land being unauthorised structure. In such a proceeding the owner of the land will have direct interest in the out come of the suit. In that sense, he would be proper party in such proceedings. The court below has rightly invoked the principles expounded by the apex court in the case of M/s. Aliji Moniji & Co. vs. Lalji Mavji & Ors. M/s. Aliji Moniji & Co. vs. Lalji Mavji & Ors. M/s. Aliji Moniji & Co. vs. Lalji Mavji & Ors. -: 2 :- reported in ARI 1997 Supreme Court page 64. reported in ARI 1997 Supreme Court page 64. reported in ARI 1997 Supreme Court page 64. The counsel for the petitioner, however, has attempted to distinguish the said judgment in M/s. Aliji Moniji’s M/s. Aliji Moniji’s M/s. Aliji Moniji’s case. It is not possible to accept that argument. For, no doubt the observations in tht decision deal with the claim of a person who is owner or landlord in relation to the structure in question, however, that does not mean that the owner of the land who is keen to get the structure demolished being unauthorised structure will not be interested or concerned with the outcome of the proceedings. To my mind, the owner of the suit land is entitled to support the action of removal of unauthorised structure of his land initiated by the corporation. Indeed, by adding the owner of the land as party to the suit filed by the occupant of the structure in respect of action initiated by the corporation by itself would not expand the scope of the enquiry in the such proceeding. The enquiry will still be limited to the issue as to whether the suit structure is unauthorised or otherwise and the purported action of the corporation is justified and in accordance with the law. 3. In the circumstances, no interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Hence, dismissed. -: 3 :- (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)