Sayyed 22-AO.745.2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.745 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.887 OF 2019 Kisan Wagha Makwana & Ors. ...Appellants/Applicants Versus The Brihinmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. P. R. Rathod for the Appellants/Applicants. Ms. Neeta Jadhav i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Respondent-MCGM. Mr. D. J. Haldankar, AGP for Respondent No.3-State. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATE : 27 NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.: 1. This appeal challenges an order dated 2 April 2019, whereby the ad-interim relief on the motion taken out by the plaintiffs were refused. I am informed that the main motion is pending. 2. The short issue in the main suit is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to use the suit property for drying the fish on the land which belongs to the State Government. Admittedly, after 2000, the plaintiffs do not have any permission to use the suit property for drying the fish, but they have continued to do so till today. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the Corporation is threatening to dig the suit structure and demolish the structure existing on the said land without giving any notice to the plaintiffs. It was on this basis and apprehension that the present suit came to be filed for seeking various reliefs including a declaration that the plaintiffs have absolute right to do the work on the suit premises. 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AS:51571 Sayyed 22-AO.745.2019.doc 3. I have perused the impugned order. It is undisputed that after 2000, the plaintiffs do not have any permission to use the suit property, which belongs to the State Government for the purpose of drying the fish, but they have continue to do so till today. 4. Therefore, the plaintiffs would make an appropriate application to the State Government seeking permission for continuing the use of the land for the purpose of drying the fish. Such application to be made within four weeks from today. The appropriate authority to whom the application is made should hear the plaintiffs and pass an order deciding the application within four weeks from the receipt of the application seeking permission. Till the appropriate authority decides the application of the plaintiffs, the Corporation would not take any coercive steps on the suit premises. 5. If the State grants permission to the plaintiffs then in that case and the Corporation wishes to take any action for demolition or digging then the Corporation will give notice to the plaintiffs seeking their reply and after considering the reply will pass an order directing the plaintiffs whether to retain structure or demolish structure. If any adverse order is passed by the Corporation then same will not be acted upon for a period of four weeks to enable the plaintiffs to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants states that based on the above directions, he will not press for the original suit and make an appropriate application before the City Civil Court for withdrawal of the suit. 2 of 3 Sayyed 22-AO.745.2019.doc 7. I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, civil application does not survive and is disposed of. [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] 3 of 3 Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/11/2025 17:44:43