2006 Supreme(Bom) 794

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(D. D. Sinha and R. C. Chavan, JJ.)
SAROJINI w/o MOTISAO SARODAYA and others Petitioners.
vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and others Respondents.
Advocates appeared.
For petitioners: B. N. Mohta
For respondent Nos. 1 and 4 : A. G. Mujumdar, Assistant Govt. Pleader For respondent Nos. 2 and 2A : S. K. Mishra
For respondent No.3: G. Choubey
For respondent Nos. 5 to 7: A. S. laiswal and B. C. Pal For respondent No.8: S. V. Manohar
For interveners: S. C. Mehadia

Headnote:Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regularisation, Upgradation and Control) Act (27 of 2001) - Sections 2(a), (b), 3 and 4 - Petitioner society seeking regularisation of layout - The Chairman of Improvement Trust was only required to consider whether the documentary evidence submitted by petitioner society or its members was adequate to hold that possession of members of the society is legal possession - Impugned order passed by Chairman showed that he had wrongly construed requirements of Section 4(2)(a) by holding that plot holders are required to submit documentary proof of ownership and lawful possession of plots and therefore asked society to get title proved from Court of law - Impugned order is liable to be set aside. - As per procedure for regularisation provided under Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act, the concerned holder of the plot is entitled to apply for regularisation of Gunthewari development within a stipulated period and ap art from other documentary evidence, is required to submit documentary proof of either ownership of the said plot or lawful possession of the said plot and not both. The Chairman, Improvement Trust while considering the objection of the respondent was only required to consider as to whether the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner Society/its members is adequate to hold that possession of members of the Cooperative Housing Society is a legal possession and nothing else. However, the Chairman, Im provement Trust has wrongly construed the requirement under Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Gun thewari Act by holding that plot holders are required to submit documentary proof of ownership and lawful possession of plots and, therefore, asked the Cooperative Housing Society as well as members of the said Society to get their title proved through Court of law and directed the Nagpur Improvement Trust not to take any action of regularisation till such time. The findings recorded in the impugned order are inconsistent with procedure prescribed under Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. Order quashed and set aside.

       Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regularisation, Upgradation and Control) Act (27 of 2001) - Sections 3 and 4 - Regularisation of Gunthewari development - Necessary to provide documentary proof of ownership of plot to be submitted - Single proof is sufficient - Not necessary to submit proof of lawful possession and ownership of plot - Word ’or’ and ’and’ clearly distinguishable. - The language used in clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act is totally unambiguous and completely clear and, therefore, word "or" used in the said clause is required to be construed keeping in view the object of the Gunthewari Act as well as purpose to be achieved by the scheme evolved by the provisions of Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act. The word "or" is used to link alternatives and in the context in which it is used would mean that production of either documentary proof of ownership or documentary proof of lawful possession shall fulfil the requirement of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act. It is, therefore, implicitly clear that in view of the intention of the Legislature and object of the Gunthewari Act, word "or" cannot be read as "and". Therefore, it is evident that the plot holder, who has applied for regularisation of Gunthewari development, is required to submit documentary proof either of ownership of plot or lawful possession of the said plot and is not required to submit both. Similarly, plot holder has to fulfil other requirements stipulated in clauses (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act.

       Plot holder may not be owner of the said plot, but if was in lawful possession of the said plot, was eligible to be considered for regularisation of Gunthewari development under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act. It is not the purport of the provisions of Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act that owner of the plot alone is eligible for regularisation of Gunthewari development. Even the person having lawful possession of the p lot is equally eligible for regularisation of Gunthewari development subject to fulfilment of other conditions.

       Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regularisation, Upgradation and Control) Act (27 of 2001) - Section 4(2)(a) - Gunthewari development - Person in lawful possession of plot even if not the owner of the plot is eligible to be considered for regularisation of Gunthewari development - Plea that right to apply for regularisation vests only with the owner and not with anyone else is therefore liable to be rejected. - Plot holder may not be owner of the plot, but if was in lawful possession of the said plot, was eligible to be considered for regularisation of Gunthewari development under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act. It is not the purport of the provisions of Section 4 of the Gunthewari Act that owner of the plot alone is eligible for regularisation of Gunthewari development. Even the person having lawful possession of the plot is equally eligible for regularisation of Gunthewari development subject to fulfilment of other conditions. The contention that right to apply for regularisation under the Gunthewari Act vests only with the owner and not with anyone else is completely misconceived and devoid of substance and, therefore, same is rejected.