dated 15.12.1980 in the list of dates. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner 15.12.1980 becomes 15.7.1980. At the cost of repetition, a typed document along with this petition has a date of 15.12.1980 but the photocopy of the so-called original of the said document has a date of 15.7.1980. This is the reason why in the rejoinder date of 15.7.1980 has been relied upon. Again at the cost of repetition, it is noted that in the entire RTI queries raised by the petitioner he has never asked or queried either about document dated 15.7.1980 or 15.12.1980. In response learned counsel for respondent vehemently submits that this document has not been issued by the Department and there is no authenticity qua this document. This Court endorses this submission. This Court also notes that this is the only document relied upon by the petitioner to advance his submission that his property falls in a local commercial area. The authenticity of document dated 15.7.1980/15.12.1980 being dubious and in doubt, this Court is not inclined to accept that document. In the absence of this document, there is nothing on record to show that the property of the petitioner falls in local commercial area. This document is rejected.
