1 AO-660-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 660 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTIN NO. 1646 OF 2010 IN L.C.SUIT NO. 1590 OF 2010 Mr. Gurpreet Singh S/o Mohinder Singh Saini ... Appellant Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ... Respondents Shri Anil C. Singh, i/b. Mr. Vimlesh Singh,Advocate for the appellant. Shri K.K.Soraan, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Shri M.D. Pokale, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 11th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and the documents. 2. The plaintiff/appellant had filed Long Cause Suit no.1590 of 2010 and took out a Notice of Motion restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the disputed structure on the area of 29' x 29' of CTS No.118, at Village Marvali, Taluka Kurla, Shahji Nagar, R.C. Marg, Aziz Baug, Chembur, 2 AO-660-11.sxw Mumbai. According to him, the structure was constructed by the previous occupier one Sabuddin Yadav prior to 1962 and it was assessed to Municipal tax and was given No. M-2131(1A). The plaintiff purchased the suit structure with land under an agreement though that is not registered. As there was a threat of demolition, he wanted injunction against the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation passed an order under Section 354A after service of the notice dated 1.7.2010. According to the plaintiff, the property is situated in slum area and as it is in existence in any case since prior to 1.1.1995, it is protected under law. The order dated 8.7.2010 shows that there is no document to show that the structure is in existence prior to 1.1.1962 and therefore protected. 3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant points out that as per the Notification dated 30.6.1978, the said CTS No.118 of Village Marvali is already declared a slum. and this has been confirmed by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) and the Competent Authority by letter dated 7.12.1978. The plaintiff/appellant has produced documents to show that at least for the year 1973, this property was assessed when his predecessor Sabuddin Yadav was the occupant. The document under which he purchased shows that he had purchased a shed. In the assessment order of 1973, there is a reference to shed. It appears that the said structure was repaired and reconstructed or completely a new 3 AO-660-11.sxw structure was raised by the plaintiff/appellant. In view of the fact that the plaintiff/appellant claims that the property is situated in the slum area and, therefore, even though it is unauthorised construction and even though the structure may not be in existence prior to 1.1.1962, it will be protected, this aspect needs to be considered by the Municipal Authorities. 4. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, after some discussion at the Bar, makes a statement that he is willing to withdraw the suit, appeal and the application and file a detailed reply before the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, M/West Ward and the concerned Assistant Municipal Commissioner may pass fresh order after hearing the parties and after perusal of the relevant record. 5. In view of the above circumstances, the Appeal and the Application stand disposed of as withdrawn. The appellant shall have an opportunity to file fresh reply with relevant documents before the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, M/West Ward within two weeks from this day. If such reply is filed within the specified period, the concerned Assistant Municipal Commissioner shall, after hearing and perusal of the record, pass a fresh order within six weeks thereafter. He will also give an opportunity to the respondent 4 AO-660-11.sxw No.2 of hearing. He will also consider the question as to whether the property is situated in slum area and whether under any law it is protected. Till communication of fresh decision and two weeks thereafter the parties shall maintain status quo as of today. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)