SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1.

2. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 24th October 2017 passed by the District Judge-5, Satara, thereby dismissing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 80 of 2017 which was preferred by the present Petitioner challenging the order below Exhibit-5 dated 13th April 2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahabaleshwar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 2016.

3. The application at Exhibit-5 was filed by the present Petitioner for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the Respondent-Municipal Corporation from taking any action in pursuance of the notice dated 6th April 2016 issued under Section 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act).

4. The contention of the Petitioner before the trial Court and this Court is that she is in possession of the suit land since 1994 on the basis of the development and lease agreement executed in the year 1994 by the Indian Church Trustees, Calcutta under the management of the Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Private Limited. The said lease was for a period of 99 years and in consideration thereof amount of Rs. 10,000/- per year was agreed to be paid by the Petitioner to the trust. Subsequently, an agreement dated 9th March 2010 was also executed by the trustees in her favour in which the execution of the earlier agreement is also admitted. She has spent the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- for maintenance and development of the said property as wax museum after giving an application/notice to the Respondent-Municipal Corporation on 5th February 2016 seeking permission for putting up temporary structure in the nature of tin-shed. Thereafter, waiting 60 days therefrom for the reply to the said notice from Municipal Council, which she did not received, under the provision of deemed permission, she has erected the temporary tin-shed admeasuring 140 feet x 30 feet on the said plot of land. By the impugned notice dated 6th April 2016, issued at the instance of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who have no concern with the suit property but claimed to be trustees of the Bombay Diocesan Trust Association, Respondent No. 1- Municipal Council is calling upon her to remove the said structure on the count that it is illegal, unauthorized and put up without permission. Therefore, according to her, the said notice is illegal, null and void and therefore, Respondent No. 1 be restrained from taking any action in pursuance of the said notice.

5. Respondent No. 1 has resisted this application for interim injunction on various grounds, including that, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant such relief in view of the provisions of Section 149 of the MRTP Act. Secondly, it is submitted that, the Petitioner is not the owner of the suit property, her lease-deed is seriously in question and disputed; the Petitioner is also not entitled to get the benefit of deemed permission, as she has neither the locus to file such application for permission to erect the structure nor her application was accompanied with the requisite documents except for the form and the map; hence, her application was required to be dismissed. It was also contended that the suit property is listed as Heritage Property, requiring permission for any construction thereon from Heritage Committee. No such permission is obtained. Mahabaleshwar is Eco-sensitive zone and local authority is bound to observe the rules strictly. Hence, on this count also, the application for interim injunction has to be dismissed.

6. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had also resisted this application contending inter-alia that the suit property is exclusively owned and possessed by the trust and the Petitioner is merely a trespasser. The trust has not granted any right or permission to carryout any sort of construction over the suit property. It is submi