Important Point – Notice under section 89 read with 90 of the MRTP Act, 1966 has to be issued if any person continues to occupy any land after date on which final scheme came into force.

By three separate appeals bearing nos.496 of 2015, 1210 of 2015 and 487 of 2015, the appellants (original defendants nos.1, 2, 3 and 4) have impugned the order passed by the learned trial Judge allowing the Notice of Motion No.1396 of 2010 filed by the respondent no.1 herein (original plaintiff) for interim relief. The order dated 30th January 2015 passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the Notice of Motion No.3339 of 2013 filed by the original defendant nos.4 inter alia praying for vacating the order dated 16th June 2010 read with order dated 19th October 2010 and for staying the effect and implementation of order dated 16th June 2010 read with order dated 19th October 2010 has been impugned by the defendant no.4 in Appeal from Order No.495 of 2015. By consent of parties, all four appeals were heard together and are being disposed of finally.

2. Appeal from Order Nos.495 of 2015 and 496 of 2015 are filed by the original defendant nos.4. Appeal from Order No.487 of 2015 is filed by the original defendant no.3 and Appeal from Order No.1210 of 2015 is filed by the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (original defendant nos.1 and 2). The respondent no.1 herein was the original plaintiff before the learned trial Judge. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgment are described as they were described in the proceedings before the learned trial Judge. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these four appeals are as under :-

3. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was the owner of the original plot nos.267, 267 A and 267 B comprising of City Survey Nos.133 and 134 admeasuring 2893 sq.mtrs. On 25th June 1951, the defendant no.1-Corporation declared its intention to make a Scheme in respect of the area under Section 9 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915. It was the case of the plaintiff that one basic feature of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 was the preparation of development plain for the entire area within its jurisdiction. On 18th January 1957, the Bombay Town Planning Scheme Validation Act, 1956 was enacted. On 4th April 1957, the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 came into force. On 15th October 1963, Town Planning Scheme IV (TPS) of Mahim came into force.

4. On coming into force of TPS, title of final plot no.267 vested in the defendant no.1 (Municipal Corporation), the Planning Authority under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It was the case of the defendants that a portion admeasuring 353 sq.mtrs. of the final plot no.267 remained in possession of the plaintiff. The said final plot no.267 was shown in TPS as reserved for 'Municipal School'. The final plot no.265 on its reconstitution admeasuring 2198.7 sq.mtrs. vested in plaintiff. It was, however, the case of the plaintiff that the portion admeasuring 353 sq.mtrs. of the final plot no.267 remained in possession of the plaintiff and on reconstitution of the final plot no.265, the original plot continued with the plaintiff. On 30th April 1977, the plaintiff made an application to the defendant no.1-Municipal Corporation to retain the suit property which application came to be rejected.

5. Under the final development plan in the years 1991-1993, the final plot no.267 was shown as reserved for 'Housing for Dishoused.' On or about 25th March 1991, Development Control Regulations, 1991 came into force. Some time in the year 1992, the plaintiff made a proposal to the defendant no.1-Municipal Corporation for development of their final plot no.265.

6. It is the case of the defendants that the occupants of the tenements on final plot no.267 made various applications to the defendant no.1-Municipal Corporation for permitting them to develop the said final plot no.267 during the period between 1993-2003 under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991. On 17th November 1994, the defendant no.1-Municipal Corporation granted 'Intimation of Disapproval (IOD)' to the plaintiff