Petitioner challenged eviction by Municipal Council for alleged violation of natural justice. Court held facts were seriously disputed and required civil court evidence, dismissing the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
wp5462.11-Orde r
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETN. NO.5462/2011
Fulchand Babulal Kurmawanshi.
-vs-
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council Karanja Lad and others
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
S/Shri A.P.Tathod & A.D.Girdekar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.I.Dhatrak, counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri V.A.Thakare, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 21.08.2012.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action on the part of the Chief Officer, Municipal Council Karanja Lad evicting the petitioner from the plot in question is patently illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was a lessee of the plot in question since 1972, the plot being leased to the petitioner by the Revenue Department. The lease was renewed from time to time till the year 2005. After 2005 there was however, no renewal in spite of an application made by the petitioner, in that regard. The
wp5462.11-Orde r
2/3
petitioner has averred in the petition that the respondent No.1-Municipal Council in the guise of removing the other encroachment in the said locality have removed the structure of the petitioner from the plot in question.
The respondent No.1-Municipal Council has filed an affidavit-in-reply. It is categorically stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the respondent No.1 had not removed the entire structure on the plot in question and had only removed certain portion of the structure belonging to the petitioner as it was just above the drainage.
The petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating therein that the entire structure of the petitioner on the plot in question has been removed and as soon as the same was removed by the respondent No.1-Municipal Council, one Smt. Rajwantibai has obtained the possession of the plot and has made a temporary construction on the same.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply and the rejoinder, it appears that several disputed questions of facts arise for determination in this case. It is an admitted position that the lease of the petitioner was not renewed after 2005. On one hand, the petitioner claims that the
wp5462.11-Orde r
3/3
respondent No.1-Municipal Council has removed the entire structure and on the other hand, the respondent No.1-Municipal Council has stated on affidavit that the entire structure has not been removed and only a part which was outside the plot in question has been removed. A rejoinder of the petitioner states that one Smt. Rajwantibai has obtained the possession of the plot in question and has made a new construction thereon. Smt. Rajwantibai is not a party to this petition. So also the facts stated herein above are seriously disputed and raise serious dispute in regard to the issues involved in the writ petition. This matter can be better adjudicated by a Civil Court where the parties are entitled to tender evidence.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
KHUNTE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the eviction of the petitioner by the Municipal Council violates principles of natural justice.
Whether the disputed facts regarding lease renewal and structure removal require determination by a Civil Court.
Fulchand Babulal Kurmawanshi
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council Karanja Lad
VASANTI A. NAIK
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
