Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ganesh Kalunath Rawal, challenged the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Kalyan, dated 7.8.2003, which upheld the order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Encroachment) holding that the petitioner had encroached on the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation's land and was liable to be evicted. The Corporation issued a notice dated 20.6.2000 for eviction from premises admeasuring 7' x 13' in 'U' no.73, sheet no.47, site no.186, Ulhasnagar-3. The petitioner responded, claiming he had purchased the property from Gopichand Sunderdas Sablani, who had purchased it from Smt. Saraswati Ishwarlal Desai by a registered sale deed. However, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner found that the sale deed itself stated the structure was on Government land, now transferred to the Municipal Corporation, and thus the petitioner's possession was illegal and constituted an encroachment. The appeal to the Additional District Judge was dismissed. In the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that the notice's reference to a 'U' number indicated that the encroachment had been regularized, as 'U' numbers are given to properties where encroachment made prior to 11.5.1965 had been regularized. The court rejected this contention, holding that the mere mention of a 'U' number in the notice does not outweigh the inference from the notice itself, which was for eviction, and the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of regularization. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Encroachment - Regularization - Mere mention of 'U' number in eviction notice does not prove regularization of encroachment - The petitioner claimed that the 'U' number in the notice indicated regularization of encroachment prior to 11.5.1965, but the court held that the notice itself was for eviction and the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of regularization - The court upheld the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the petitioner's possession was illegal and unauthorized (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the mention of a 'U' number in the eviction notice indicates that the encroachment has been regularized, thereby barring eviction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the petitioner's possession was illegal and unauthorised, and the mere mention of 'U' number does not prove regularization.
Law Points
- Encroachment
- Regularization
- Eviction
- Burden of Proof
- Municipal Corporation
