Single judge rejected a writ petition challenging an order allowing partial regularisation of unauthorised occupation of government land, finding the recorded area to be a valid appreciation of evidence.
Writ petition rejected; impugned order of partial regularisation upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1057 OF 2004
Rajendra J. Pandey & Anr. .. Petitioners
V/s
Managing Officer & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.S.P. Kanuga for the Petitioners.
Mr.V.S. Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. for the Respondents.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 24TH APRIL 2007
P.C. :
1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the Petitioners challenge the
order dated 25th September 2003 passed by the Authorized
Chief Settlement Commissioner for Compensation Pool
Properties-cum-Custodian and Evacuee Properties,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
3. The Petitioners are the heirs of Jaishankar
Pandey; the Petitioner No.1 being his son and the
Petitioner No.2 being his widow. Jaishankar Pandey was
in unauthorised occupation of the government land being
part of CTS No.447, Nahur Village, Mumbai. Jaishankar
Pandey / the Petitioners made an application for
regularisation of unauthorised occupation under the
provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and
- 2 -
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). As the
application was not considered and decided, the
Petitioners filed a writ petition being Writ Petition
No.4000 of 2001, for a direction to the Respondents
issue conveyance in respect of CTS No.447 (Part) in
their occupation in accordance with the Act, or in the
alternative to consider the Petitioners’ application and
pass a speaking order thereon. By an order dated 4th
September 2001, Division Bench of this Court directed
the Petitioners to file a fresh representation to the
Managing Officer setting out their claim in detail and
the Managing Officer was directed to dispose of the same
in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the
Petitioners of being heard.
4. Pursuant to the directions issued in Writ
Petition No.4000 of 2001 by this Court, the Petitioners
made a representation to the Managing
Officer-cum-Tahsildar, Kurla Rehabilitation. A copy of
the said representation is not annexed to the present
writ petition and even at the hearing, counsel for the
Petitioners is unable to tender a copy thereof for my
inspection. In the circumstances, it is not possible to
know what were the contents of the Petitioners’
representation. It is however common ground that the
representation was for regularisation of the
- 3 -
unauthorised occupation of the Petitioners in respect of
a part of CTS No.447.
5. After giving opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioners, the Managing Officer, Mumbai City, Mumbai
rejected the representation by his order dated 20th July
2002. Aggrieved Petitioners filed a revision petition
before the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner -
the Respondent No.2 herein. By the impugned order dated
25th September 2003, the Respondent No.2 partly allowed
the revision application filed by the Petitioners.
After reappreciation of evidence, the Respondent No.2
came to the conclusion that as on 6th August 1983
Jaishankar Pandey, the father of the Petitioner No.1,
was in occupation of 196.7 sq.ms. (235.3 sq.yards) of
the land out of CTS No.447, Nahur Village. He therefore
held that the Petitioners were entitled for
regularisation of their possession and conveyance of
land to that extent.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted
that while the conclusion of the 2nd Respondent that the
Petitioners were in possession of part of CTS No.447,
Nahur Village, was correct the finding that the
Petitioners, and prior to them the father of the
Petitioner No.1, were in possession of only 196.7 sq.ms.
- 4 -
of land is factually incorrect. According to the
Petitioners, they were in possession of land bearing CTS
No.447 (part) admeasuring about 618 sq.ms.
7. The Petitioners have not produced before this
Court any material to show that they were actually in
possession of 618 sq.ms. out of CTS No.447. The
finding recorded by the Respondent No.1 in Revision that
Jaishankar Pandey, the father of the Petitioner No.1,
was in possession of 196.7 sq.ms. of land out of CTS
No.447, is a finding of fact. In my view, the said
finding which is based on appreciation of evidence is
clearly a possible finding of fact and cannot be said to
be in any way perverse. The Petitioners have built some
structures upon part of CTS No.447. The structures were
measured and the area of structures has been taken into
consideration by the 2nd Respondent. There is nothing
on record to show that in addition to the structures,
the Petitioners were in possession of any open area
around or surrounding the said structures. In the facts
and circumstances of the case and in exercise of writ
jurisdiction, it is not possible to hold that the
finding recorded by the 2nd Respondent about the area in
occupation of the Petitioners is in any manner perverse.
8. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ
- 5 -
petition which is hereby rejected.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order finding the petitioner in possession of only 196.7 sq.ms. of land is perverse in view of their claim for 618 sq.ms.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra J. Pandey & Anr.
Managing Officer & Ors.
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court