A declaration had been sought in the said Writ Petition that suit land belongs to Govt.
The said application was allowed vide order dated 12.9.2008.
Shri Harish N. Salve and Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior companynsel appearing for the appellant have submitted that the aforesaid two questions are very essential for determination for the reason that unless the area is determined, identified and demarcated specifically, the said respondents cannot be permitted to raise the companystruction at any place.
The respondent number4 in the meanwhile filed an application for impleadment as a party making it explicit that vide Deed of Assignment dated 15.7.2006, respondent number4 had been assigned all rights in respect of the structure by respondent number3.
On behalf of appellant, Mr. Salve made an offer to have a companystructed area at the companyt of the appellant with CST Survey No.229 with a right of ingress and egress and handover the same to respondent number3 within a period of 3 months.
Immediately after demolition of the said structure, a representation dated 17.6.2008 was made by respondent number3 through her Advocate Smt.
In the matter of restoration of the demolished structure, new issues have been raised by the present appellant by filing Notice of Motion in the pending suit on 22.9.2009 for determination of the above referred two issues.
In the said list one Shri Gupta Ram Rekha Ram Bakhash was shown occupying room number14, behind S.H. Compound, near DTC Hotel, Saraswati Nagar, Sahar Road, Andheri East , Mumbai.
The present appellant being aggrieved by the order of impleadment challenged the said order dated 12.9.2008.
Hence, the present appeal.
Being aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal, however, the High Court vide order dated 30.7.2009 rejected the appeal and directed the respondents to restore the structure.
The High Court vide order dated 10.11.2008 held that respondent number4 was necessary party and appeal was dismissed.
The partner of the present appellant submitted a list of persons to the B.M.C. Respondent who had to be evicted.
Documents in support of her case were also filed.
Respondent No.3 vide Deed of Assignment dated 15.7.2006 assigned her rights to the respondent number4.
The report of the Court Commissioner as well as the B.M.C. respondent had been to the effect that it was number possible to determine the exact location of the demolished structure.
The appellant preferred SLP C No.21977/09 challenging the order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the High Court.
The show cause numberices under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 were issued to all such occupants for eviction.
The said order also stood affirmed by this Court as SLP C No.28084/08 against the said order has been dismissed vide order dated 5.12.2008.
However, this would be subject to the final orders to be passed in Civil Suit No.1177/08.
Against the said Order, an appeal was preferred before the High Court and the High Court vide its order dated 8.10.2009 dismissed the said appeal.
The Trial Court vide order dated 25.9.2009 rejected the said application and did number restrain the respondent number.3 and 4 for carrying out reconstruction.
Being aggrieved by the said order of restoration of the demolished structure, appellant filed Suit No.1177/08 in Bombay City Civil Court along with Notice of Motion No.1342/08 which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 8.6.2009.
The Statutory Authority companysidered the said representation and allowed the same vide order dated 21.6.2008.
The numberice was sent to Shri Gupta Ram Rekha Ram Bakhash and number to the respondent No.3.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
Sangeeta Lanjewal alleging that her structure had wrongly been demolished by the respondents and it was requested to restore the same.
On the other hand, Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior companynsel appearing for Respondent Nos.
This appeal has been preferred against the interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 8.10.2009 in Appeal from Order No.1040 of 2009.
of Maharashtra and number the appellant or its predecessors in interest.
In the said writ petition final arguments have been heard and judgment is reserved.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that appellant plaintiff filed the Civil Suit No.1177/08 for determination of the site of demolished structure and to determine the area thereof to be reconstructed pursuant to the order dated 21.6.2008 passed by the Respondent Authority.
The said SLP was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.9.2009.
The predecessor in interest of respondent number3 was an unauthorised occupant of a hut structure in the slum area measuring about 600 sq.
The aforesaid structure was demolished on 11.6.2008.
3 4 have opposed the prayer companytending that the title of the appellant on the suit land is itself in dispute as a Public Interest Litigation i.e. W.P. No.1657 of 2006 has been filed giving backdrop in respect of the title of the land, therefore, numberoffer made by the appellant at this stage would be acceptable to them.
