with immediate effect as per clause-4 which contemplates service of three months notice for determining the licence. That is how, in the order dated 17th April 2017, a direction has been issued to the first petitioner by the Superintendent of the Gardens to handover peaceful possession of the said land within three months from the date of order, failing which the possession will be taken over by his office. Even assuming that both the orders subject matter of challenge in the writ petition are legal and valid, the termination of agreement could have taken effect at the highest from 16th July 2017 and that is why under the order dated 17th April 2017 the first petitioner in PIL was ordered to handover peaceful possession of the subject land within three months from 17th April 2017. The specific contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation is that after the order of dismissal of PIL on 5th June 2017, there was no impediment in the way for taking over the possession of the part of land for the Fire Brigade Station and, therefore, possession was taken over on 14th June 2017. This contention is fallacious as even according to the case of the Municipal Corporation, the determination of the licence was to take effect from 16th July 2017. Before the termination of licence, the Municipal Corporation had no authority to enter the said land. Coming back to the impugned order in PIL, as pointed out earlier, all that it records is that if the possession of the land is not handed over by the first petitioner, a legal action as per clause4 of the agreement will be taken. What is contemplated by clause-4 is of determination of license by giving three months' notice. That action was eventually taken in April 2017 by the orders impugned in the other writ petition. Even taking the stand of the Municipal Corporation, which is reflected from the order impugned in the said writ petition, as correct, the
