Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
Jayashree Prakash Mahadik - Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash Gupta - Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 907 of 2022
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Bhagyashri Mangale, Advocate, Jating S. Jamkhandi, Advocate, Narendra V. Walawalkar, Advocate, Smita Tondwalkar, Advocate, Narayan Mathakar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Possession based on forged documents does not confer legal rights, and the state has the authority to evict unauthorized occupants without extensive due process when such possession is unlawful.
Headnote:
ILLEGAL OCCUPATION - MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - Sec. 314 - The court addressed the issue of illegal occupation of municipal tenements by individuals claiming to be project affected persons (PAPs) based on forged documents. It emphasized the need for proper documentation and legal authority for occupancy. The court interpreted Sec. 314 of the Municipal Corporation Act, which pertains to the authority of the municipal corporation to manage its properties, and highlighted the importance of due process in eviction proceedings. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of legitimate claims from the appellants and the need to protect public interest against illegal encroachments.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants claimed to be project affected persons occupying municipal tenements based on allegedly forged allotment letters. The Municipal Corporation contended that these documents were fabricated and that the appellants had no legal right to occupy the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were in illegal possession of the tenements based on forged documents. It ruled that their claims were unfounded and that they were effectively trespassers without any legitimate rights to the property.
Issues: Whether the appellants had any legal rights to occupy the municipal tenements and whether the Municipal Corporation could evict them based on the lack of legitimate documentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere possession does not confer legal rights, especially when such possession is based on forged documents. It reiterated that the Municipal Corporation has the authority to evict unauthorized occupants without the need for extensive due process when the occupants lack lawful authority.
Final Decision: The court ordered the appellants to vacate the tenements within six weeks, failing which the Court Receiver would take possession. It also directed the Municipal Corporation to establish a 'Special Cell' to manage and oversee the allotment and eviction processes for municipal properties.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The order impugned in these appeals is an order dtd. 27/7/2020 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Bombay whereby Notice of Motion No. 1766 of 2022 filed by the appellant/plaintiff in L.C. Suit No. 1138 of 2022 has been rejected.
2. Perusal of the record indicates that there was no ad-interim protection granted by this Court till date. When the proceedings were heard by this Court on 13/2/2023 (yesterday) on urgent mentioning, the matter was adjourned for today to enable the learned advocate for the Municipal Corporation to take instructions.
3. I have heard Ms. Mangale, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Walawalkar, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Tondwalkar for the Municipal Corporation.
4. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the appellants/plaintiffs under the garb that they are project affected persons, are occupying tenements in question relying on allotment letters alleged to be issued by the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation had categorically contended that the allotment letters and possession receipts produced by the appellants/plaintiffs were bogus and fabricated. The learned trial Judge on the materials as placed on record, has observed that such allotment letters are forged and fabricated documents. It is observed that the Assistant Engineer "E" Ward, at no time had issued such possession letters to the appellants, on the basis of which the appellants/plaintiffs claimed to be in the occupation of the project affected persons (PAP) tenements. It is on the basis of such bogus documents, the appellants/plaintiffs had initially obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the municipal corporation without proper service of the proceedings on the municipal corporation. This apart, the suit in question came to be filed not assailing the action on the part of the municipal corporation of any notice being issued under Sec. 314 of the Municipal Corporation Act, but on purported oral threats. This assumes significance, as one of the observations as made in the impugned order, in my opinion, is quite serious, from which it prima facie appears that the officers of the municipal corporation are also misusing their position and/or are not appropriately controlling the fact-situation. The said observation reads thus:
<WXY>"12. ...... It is contention of the corporation that premises in Building No. 37 in Eversmile construction building has not been handed over to the Corporation for the purpose of project affected persons."</WXY>
5. Hence, what is disturbing is that not only there were tenements which may possibly be tenements which were under the control and authority of the municipal corporation, but there are certain other tenements, which ought to come to the municipal corporation and before they are so handed over to the municipal corporation, the same are being illegally dealt/allotted, when in fact they need to be in the pool of the municipal corporation. All these incidents depicts a sorry state of affairs, namely, as to how the municipal corporation could not be vigilant and permit illegal occupation of its tenements by such persons like the appellants/plaintiffs, who are in occupation of the premises, on forged and fabricated documents, and further, as to why timely steps were not taken by the municipal corporation in a manner known to law, to evict them/remedy the situation, more particularly, when such incidents are not new to the municipal corporation and its officers. Also in the past, similar illegalities had occurred with PAP tenements in control of the municipal corporation, were occupied illegally and on false documents, when the proceedings had reached this Court. Such incidents/illegality amounts to nothing but usurption of public largesse in a manner contrary to law.
6. Mr. Walawalkar, in fairness, has drawn the Court's attention to an order dtd. 5/5/2017 in Jayprakash Patru Chouhan & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr., Ap
