Order (Per Kamal Khata, J.):-

1) The present application is preferred by the Applicant seeking recall of the Judgment dated 30^th April 2025, passed by this Court in the present Writ Petition.

2) Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned senior Advocate for the Applicant submits that, this Application is in pursuance of the Supreme Court Order dated 17^th June, 2025 whereby the Supreme Court has granted liberty to the Applicant to avail an appropriate legal remedy including filing of an Application before this Court seeking recall of the Judgment dated 30^th April, 2025.

2.1) He submits that, this Court passed the impugned Judgment dated 30^th April 2025 overlooking the fact that the Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the Regular Civil Suit No.318 of 2002 by its Judgment dated 5^th April, 2025. Thus, the directions passed by this Court in paragraph No.12(a), 12(c) and 12(d) would stand vitiated by virtue of the Judgment in the Regular Civil Suit No.318 of 2002. He contended that, the Petitioners endeavor to suppress the dismissal of the Suit. The Applicant, however, by his Affidavit dated 29^th April 2025 had placed on record the Judgment dated 5^th April 2025 amongst other documents.

2.2) Mr. Patil contends that, in the Judgment dated 5^th April 2025, the learned Civil Judge refers to the Maharashtra State Gazettes, Thane District, 1882, that was republished in 1982. That Gazettes contains the directory of villages and towns in Thane District including Borivade where the remaining structure/ Dargah is situated. He submitted that, the directory shows the existence of structure in the year 1882. This structure was obviously prior to the formation of the Respondent No.1. He submits that, even on a bare perusal of the records and findings of the Judgment dated 5^th April 2025, it can be ascertained that, the structure was in existence since 1882. Based on these observations of the learned Civil Judge, Thane, there was no question of seeking any permission from the Respondent-Authority. Therefore, this Court could not have directed the Respondent No.1 to carry out demolition of the remaining structure without affording an opportunity to the Applicant under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (‘MMC Act’).

2.3) He then drew our attention to the observation in the Judgment that considered the Sale Deed dated 17^th June, 1982 between the Petitioner and the erstwhile owners. He submitted that, the Sale Deed categorically mentioned about the existence of a structure on the land. He accordingly submitted that, this clause in the sale deed clearly would prove that a structure/ Dargah was standing on the land prior to 1982. He then relied upon the 7/12 extract of the year 1989 with regard to the said land wherein the Dargah is shown to be in the land. On this basis, he submitted that, it would show that the structure is existing on the land since the inception. He however acceded to the fact that, the 7/12 extracts reflect the possession of the Petitioner on the land except the Dargah.

2.4) Mr. Patil then relies upon the Application dated 27^th July 1990 to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane for registration of the Applicant-Trust. He submits that, in the Application the said structure/Dargah has been shown as the property of the Trust. He submits that, there was a Public Notice issued dated 27^th July 1990 that was issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner calling for objections against registering the Respondent No.3-Trust. However, no objections were received by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and subsequently the Registration Certificate was granted to the Respondent No.3 on 30^th August 1980. Apart from this, he relies upon the contents of the letter dated 9^th January 2020 of the Superintendent of Police to submit that, this structure is standing on the land at least from the year 1970 and it falls under the jurisdiction of Kapurbawadi Police Station, Thane. He relies upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Muni