SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 27347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 907 OF 2022

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18209 OF 2022


Jayashree Prakash Mahadik & Ors. …Appellants/Applicants

Versus

Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. …Respondents


a/w.

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 913 OF 2022

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18251 OF 2022

Shakuntala Nandkumar Sangolkar & Ors. …Appellants/Applicants

Versus

Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. …Respondents


a/w.

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 914 OF 2022

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18265 OF 2022

Varad Rajesh Kothari & Ors. …Appellants/Applicants

Versus

Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. …Respondents


Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale i/b. Mr. Jating S. Jamkhandi for the appellants/applicants.

Mr. Narendra V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Smita Tondwalkar for the respondent/MCGM.

Mr. Narayan Mathakar, Rent Supervisor M/E Ward present.


CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI, J.


DATED: 14 February, 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale, Mr. Jating S. Jamkhandi
For the Respondents: Mr. Narendra V. Walawalkar, Ms. Smita Tondwalkar

Possession based on forged documents does not convey legal rights, allowing immediate eviction of occupants by state authorities.

Headnote:(A) Municipal Corporation Act - Section 314 - Tenancy rights - Appellants claimed occupancy rights based on alleged allotment letters from the Municipal Corporation, which were determined to be forged and fabricated documents. The learned trial Judge observed serious concerns regarding the illegal occupation of municipal tenements, necessitating state action against such practices. (Paras 4-6)

(B) Due Process of Law - The court highlighted that mere possession does not confer legal rights, and the requirements of due process are satisfied where rights are adjudicated upon by a competent court. (Paras 11-12)

Facts of the case:
The appellants/plaintiffs attempted to seek interim relief to retain possession of premises based on allegedly forged allotment documents. The Municipal Corporation denied these claims and sought eviction based on the falsity of these documents.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered the appellants to vacate the tenements within six weeks and allowed the Municipal Corporation to use police assistance for enforcement. The court also recommended the establishment of a 'Special Cell' to manage and monitor allocation and administrative actions regarding municipal tenements. (Para 8)

Issues: The principal issues revolved around the legitimacy of the documents presented by the appellants, whether they could claim rights over the municipal property based solely on possession, and the responsibilities of the Municipal Corporation regarding illegal occupations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that possession without legal authority equates to trespassing and that the state has the right to reclaim possessions wrongfully held by individuals. The court also condemned the misuse of legal processes through forged documents. (Paras 11-12)

Result: Appeals disposed of, with a directive for immediate vacation of the tenements.

ORAL ORDER

1. The order impugned in these appeals is an order dated 27 July, 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 February, 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 section 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:

“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.”

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 dated 5 May, 2017 in Jayprakash Patru Chouhan & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top