Mr. Francis Joseph Ferreira And Ors vs The Additional Collector And Competent ... on 4 December, 2024

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mr. Francis Joseph Ferreira And Ors vs The Additional Collector And Competent ... on 4 December, 2024

Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh

FA 1019-13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1019 OF 2013
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (st.) NO. 29405 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1019 OF 2013.

1. Francis Joseph Ferreira ]
2. Thomas Anthony Ferreira ]
3. John Peter Ferreira ]
4. Adrain Leo Ferreira ]
5. Anthony Alban Ferreira ]
6. Mathew Remy Ferreira ]
All of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants, having ]
their address at 17/a, St. Martin Road, ]
Bandra (West). Mumbai-400 050. ]
7. Ashaben Premjibhai Patel ]
8. Vinodbhai Premjibhai Patel ]
9. Krunal Premjibhai Patel ]
10. Kumari Sarita Premjibhai Patel ]
11. Kusumben Laxmanbhai Patel ]
12. Minesh Laxmanbhai Patel ]
13. Kalpesh Laxmanbhai Patel ]
14. Rajesh Laxmanbhai Patel ]
15. Savita Harishchandra Patel ]
16. Sanjay Harishchandra Patel ]
17. Vimla Rajesh Patel ]
18. Bhavna Harishchandra Patel ]
19. Jyoti Harishchandra Patel ]
20. Babanbhai Ravjibhai Patel ]
21. Shakuntala Baban Patel ]
22. Shailesh Baban Patel ]

Patil-SR (ch) 1 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

23. Sudha Dharmendra Patel ]
24. Naina Jitendra Thakur ]
25. Bhavna Baban Patel ]
26. Nitesh Baban Patel ]
all of Mumbai Indian Inhabitants, ]
residing at Premji Patel Chawl, Tank Road, ]
Sapurpada, Valnai, Malad (West), ]
Mumbai-400 064. ]
27. Mamtora Foundation, ]
a Partnership firm registered under ]
the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 carrying ]
on business at 701, Shri Girivar, ]
S.V.P. Road, Kandivli (West), ]
Mumbai-400 067 ]...Appellants.
Versus
1. The Additional Collector & ]
Competent Authority, Urban Land ]
(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 having ]
address at 5th Floor, Near Chetana College, ]
Administrative Building. Bandra (East), ]
Mumbai-400 051. ]
2. The State of Maharashtra Through ]
the Urban Development Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ]
3. The City Survey Officer, ]
BEST Colony Building, Behind Goregaon ]
Oshiwara Bus Depot, Goregaon (West) ]
Mumbai - 400 104. ]
4. Mrs. K.V. Rahool, Surveyor, ]
Vasai Taluka, Karte Compound, ]
Opp.Tahsildar Building, Vasai (W) ]...Respondents.

Patil-SR (ch) 2 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

------------
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Farhan Dubash, Mr. Kalpesh Mehta and Mr. Vasim Shaikh i/b Pravin
Mehta & Mithi & co., for the appellant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the Respondent-State.
------------

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : October 10, 2024.
Pronounced on : December 4, 2024.
Judgment :

1. The present appeal is at the instance of original Plaintiffs being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 19th December 2012 passed by the

City Civil Court in S.C. Suit No. 607 of 2010 dismissing the suit. For sake

of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status before the

Trial Court.

PLAINT:

2. S.C. Suit No.607 of 2010 was filed by the Plaintiffs seeking

declaration about the Plaintiff's possession of the suit lands on 6 th

December, 2007 being the date of repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling

and Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short "ULC Act"] as there was no

handing over or taking of possession by the Defendants on 17 th April,

2006.

3. The suit was filed by 27 Plaintiffs out of which Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6

claimed to be owners of lands bearing CTS Nos.9 to 15, 17, 20, 20/1,

22, 28 to 32 and 33 admeasuring about 34,644.61 square meters

situated at village Valnai Talka, Taluka Borivali in Mumbai Suburban

Patil-SR (ch) 3 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

District. Plaintiff Nos 7 to 26 claimed to be agricultural tenants in

physical possession of the said 34,644 square meters of land and

Plaintiff No.27 claimed to be purchasers of rights of Plaintiff Nos. 1 to

26. The case pleaded was that initially by an order under Section 8(4)

of ULC Act, 26,313.6 square meters land was held to be surplus as

against which in the appeal filed by the Plaintiff Nos 1 to 6, the matter

was remanded for fresh consideration. After remand, by order dated

29th July 1995, the land admeasuring 7,602.45 square meters was held

to be surplus vacant land and notification was issued under Section

10(3) of the ULC Act on 31 st March 2005. On 17 th March 2006, notice

under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act is stated to have been issued by

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 calling upon the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 to

handover the possession of surplus vacant land on 17 th April 2006 at

2:30 p.m. It was pleaded that the Plaintiffs have not received the said

notice and neither a copy was pasted on the said land. The copy of the

notice, possession letter and panchnama under which the Defendants

claim to have taken possession of surplus vacant land from the Plaintiff

Nos.1 to 6 was received under the Right to Information Act by the

Plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the possession letter is not signed by the

Plaintiffs or by any authorised representative of the Plaintiffs and the

panchnama does not bear the signature of panchas. The possession

letter does not indicate possession of which part or portion of the

Patil-SR (ch) 4 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

individual CTS numbers was taken over. Under an agreement of sale

dated 31st December 2005, the Plaintiff No.27 agreed to acquire the

rights of Plaintiff No.1 to 6 in the larger property and the agreement

records that the possession is with the Plaintiff Nos.7 to 26 who have

put up various structures on the said larger property. By agreement

dated 4th October 2005, the Plaintiff No.27 has acquired all rights of

Plaintiff Nos 7 to 26 in the larger land including the suit land. The

Plaintiff No. 27 has constructed his site office on the larger land and

also deputed security guards on the site. There are 54 chawls

constructed by the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff Nos.7 to 26 on

the larger property and 650 tenants are living thereon. The possession

of the land was not taken over by the Defendants and on repeal of the

ULC Act in December 2007 the Plaintiff became entitled to the said

land.

WRITTEN STATEMENT:

4. The suit came to be resisted by the Defendants contending that

ex-parte possession of the suit land was taken on 17 th April 2006 and as

on date, the possession of suit land along with all relevant records

stands in the name of the Government of Maharashtra. After

complying with all the requisites and issuance of notices as

contemplated under the ULC Act, the Government of Maharashtra and

various departments have taken possession of the land bearing CTS

Patil-SR (ch) 5 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

Nos.9, 15, 17 and 21 of village Valnai Talka, Borivali and are in

occupation and possession. The office of Defendant No.1 had issued

notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act on 17 th March 2006 calling

upon the declarant to deliver the possession of surplus vacant land

deemed to be acquired by the government on 17th April 2006 at 2:30

p.m. and an entry of the same has also been taken in the Outward

reported that ex parte possession of the surplus vacant land, i.e., the

suit land has been taken and possession receipt has been furnished to

the office of Defendants. The structures on the suit land are

unauthorised and the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief under the

provisions of ULC Act and they have not claimed any benefit.

EVIDENCE:

5. The partner of Plaintiff No.27 deposed for himself and as

constituted attorney of the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 as to the contents of

the plaint. PW-1 produced the following documents :

Ex.9 :- Right to Information Receipt dtd. 12.08.2008.
Ex.10 :- Certified true copy of 8(4) Statement obtained under RTI
Act.
Ex.11 :- Certified copy of 10(1) notification obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.12 :- Certified copy of 10(3) notification obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.13 :- Certified copy of 10(5) notification obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.14 :- RTI Receipt dated 10.09.2008 along with certified copy of
Possession Letter and Panchanama obtained under RTI Act.
Ex.15 :- Letter dated 23/1/2007.
Ex.16 :- Certified copy of 7/12 extract.
Ex.17 :- Original Agreement dated 31/12/2005.

Patil-SR (ch) 6 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

Ex.18 :- Original Agreement dated 4/10/2005.
Ex.21 :- Certified copy of order dated 7/6/1995.
Ex.22 :- Certified copy of order dated 29/7/1995.
Ex.23 :- Writ Petition No. 166 of 2009 for writ of certiorari quashing
and setting aside Section 10(3) notification, Section 10(5)
notice and Possession Receipt.
Ex.24 :- Copy of Revision Application filed under Section 34 of ULC
Act before Hon'ble Chief Minister (Ex.-B annexed with the
plaint).
Ex.25 :- Copy of Appeal No. 149/2007 in the Court of Additional
Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai.

6. On behalf of the Defendants, DW-1 Naib Tahsildar was examined

and DW-2 Maintenance Surveyor, who was Defendant No.4 was

examined. The Defendants produced the following documents:

Exh.30 :- Original Plan provided by ULC Authorities along with
notice under Section 10(5) dtd 17/3/2006.
Exh.31 colly :- Certified copy of Review Plan.

7. DW-1 has deposed on the basis of the office record. He has

deposed as to the issuance of notification under Section 10(3) of the

ULC Act, the issuance of notice dated 17th March 2006 under Section

10(5) of the ULC Act. He has further deposed that possession of the

land was taken on 17th April 2006 and the Plaintiffs were informed to

handover possession on the said date and time being 17 th April 2006 at

2:30 p.m.. He has further deposed that the official from the City Survey

Department took possession of the land admeasuring 7,602.45 square

meters, possession receipt was prepared by the Maintenance Surveyor

after taking possession, panchnama was prepared but as there was no

Patil-SR (ch) 7 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

person ready to sign as pancha, the panchnama is not signed by any

person. He has further deposed that necessary changes were made in

the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No.188 on 20th September

2006.

8. The Defendant No.4 has deposed that she has personally taken

possession of the subject land admeasuring 7,602.45 square meters as

per the plan on 17th April 2006 at 2:30 p.m.. She has further deposed

that she visited the land and confirmed the land to be acquired as per

the plan and after making inquiries with the people of adjoining area in

respect of the owner coming forward to handover possession and as

there was no person coming to handover possession, possession of the

land bearing CTS Nos.9, 15, 17 and 21 admeasuring 7,602.45 square

meters was taken as per plan on 17th April 2006 at 2:30 p.m.. She has

further deposed that at the time of taking possession she had

prepared the possession receipt on site on 17 th April 2006 at 2:30 p.m..

She has further deposed that after drawing the possession receipt, she

has prepared the panchnama on 17th April 2006 at 2:45 p.m. in respect

of the possession taken by her which is prepared by her in her

handwriting at the site. She has further deposed that she requested

the people from the locality to sign on the panchnama but they

refused to do so and as the panchas did not come forward to sign the

panchnama, the same doesn't bear the signature of panchas. She has

Patil-SR (ch) 8 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

further produced the original plan along with the notice issued by the

office.

9. In the cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he has no personal

knowledge about the events occurring prior to 2005 and after 2010 he

has not confirmed whether the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 are alive. He has

further deposed that he will not examine Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 and that

Plaintiff Nos.7 to 26 cultivated the suit land lastly on 31 st December

2006. He has admitted that the notices at Exhibit 10 to 13 were

received by the owners and he received the documents at Exhibit 13

and 14 from the ULC Department under the RTI Act and that Exhibit 15

was also received by the owners. He has further admitted that he is

aware that the suit land was excess land and proceedings were going

on at the time of execution of agreement for sale dated 31 st December

2005. He has further admitted that the suit property as on today

stands in the name of government from the date of possession receipt.

He has further deposed that the owners did not inform him when they

received notice at Exhibit 13 and no discussion took place between the

owners and himself about the receipt of the notice.

10. DW-2 in her cross-examination has deposed that no panchnamas

were prepared in respect of taking over possession of other properties

by her office under the ULC Act. She has deposed that on 17 th April

2006 she along with the office peon went to take possession of suit

Patil-SR (ch) 9 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

property by auto-rickshaw and she reached the suit property as per the

address mentioned in the ULC letter. She has admitted that she did not

demarcate the place before taking possession and there were no

boundary marks available to ascertain the suit properties at the time of

taking possession. She has deposed that she made inquiries regarding

the owners of suit property with the local persons present there and all

the suit properties were vacant land and there were no structures and

there were no structures on the lands which were within the ceiling

limits. She has admitted that she took entry in the possession receipt

regarding the refusal to sign by the local persons. The suggestion given

was that DW-4 had never visited the site.

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT:

11. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court answered the issue of

the Plaintiff's possession on 6th December, 2007 in the negative and by

imposing negative burden on the Plaintiffs to prove that the

possession of the suit land was not taken on 17th April 2006 pursuant to

the notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act answered the same in the

negative. The Trial Court held that the PW-1 has admitted that he was

aware of the suit land being declared as surplus land and notice under

the ULC Act was already issued and that he was aware that the land

acquired by the Government cannot be purchased. The Trial Court held

that it is hard to believe that he entered into an agreement for sale on

Patil-SR (ch) 10 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

31st December 2005 as he was builder and developer and knew that the

possession of the lands was to be handed over on expiry of one

month's notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act. On the aspect of

possession, the Trial Court considered the cross-examination of DW-2

and observed that DW-2 is a government officer and had taken

possession of so many lands. It further observed that in the notice,

address of the suit land is clearly mentioned and therefore inference

cannot be drawn that DW-2 had gone to the residential address of the

Plaintiff instead of actual site. The Trial Court held that notice under

Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was given on 17 th March 2006 calling upon

the Plaintiffs to deliver possession of the suit land on 17 th April 2006

and thus a clear notice of 30 days as per Section 10(5) of the ULC Act

was given to the Plaintiff which has been admitted by the PW-1. The

Trial Court held that the possession receipt and panchnama clearly

indicates that DW-2 had obtained possession of the suit land by

confirming the same through local persons and that the Defendants by

following proper procedure of law has obtained physical possession of

the suit lands on 17th April 2006 at 2:30 p.m.. The trial Court further

held that the Plaintiffs have not brought on record any evidence that

there are structures existing specifically on the suit land.

Patil-SR (ch) 11 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

SUBMISSIONS :

12. Mr Jain, Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs would

submit that Section 10(5) of the ULC Act requires clear 30 days prior

notice before taking possession of surplus vacant land and possession

can be taken only after the expiry of period of 30 days. He submits

that in the present First Appeal, an application has been filed under

Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for taking on record additional evidence,

i.e., the Outward Register from the office of Additional Collector and

Competent Authority under the ULC Department which shows that the

notice dated 17th March 2006 was dispatched on 20 th March 2006 which

has been produced along with the Affidavit in reply of the State

Government. He submits that as the documents are admitted

documents, further evidence is not required under Section 58 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He would further submit that the exercise

of taking possession of suit property was not done in the manner

prescribed by the law. Pointing out to the panchnama, he submits that

panchnama does not contain the names and signatures of the panchas.

He would further submit that as there were specific allegations against

the Defendant No.4, she was arrayed as Defendant by name and

despite thereof no separate written statement was filed by the

Defendant No.4. He points out to the cross-examination of Defendant

No.4 and would submit that the Defendant No.4 has deposed that she

Patil-SR (ch) 12 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

went to the suit property as per the address mentioned in the ULC

letter by auto rickshaw. Pointing out to the address mentioned in the

ULC letter, he submits that the address mentioned is only the survey

numbers and the residential address of Plaintiff. He submits that as

the property has been identified only by survey numbers which is a

huge property admeasuring about 34,644.61 square meters out of

which the area of 7,602.45 square meters was to be acquired, and as

there was no demarcation on the land, it cannot be said that

possession of the suit land has been taken. He would further point out

that DW-2 has admitted that there were no boundary marks available

to ascertain the suit property at the time of taking possession. He

would submit that one other indicator that the Defendant No.4 had

not visited the suit property is her deposition that there are no

structures on the larger land or on the surplus land. Pointing out to

paragraph 10 of the written statement filed by the Defendants he

submits that the Defendants have admitted that structures on the suit

land are unauthorised. He submits that the evidence of Defendant

No.4 that as no one was present, the signature could not be taken on

the panchnama constitutes evidence without pleading and should be

discarded. He would further submit that in the cross-examination PW-

1 has specifically deposed that the owners did not inform him when

they received notice under Section 10(5) which is at Exhibit 13 and no

Patil-SR (ch) 13 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

discussion had taken place between the owners and himself. He would

further submit that the Trial Court has misconstrued the deposition

that the notice at Exhibits-10 to 13 were received by the owners

without reading the evidence as a whole. He submits that there is no

material produced on record to show the date of delivery of notice to

the Plaintiff. He submits that the burden is upon the State to show

that the notice was received by the owners on a particular date in order

to ascertain the period of 30 days and the Plaintiff cannot be asked to

prove the negative. He would further point out that in the affidavit-in-

reply filed in the present First Appeal the extracts of Dispatch Register

shows the date of dispatch as 20th March 2006 and therefore even if

the possession is stated to have been taken on 17th April 2006 the same

will amount to taking possession within the period of 30 days and

therefore unsustainable. Drawing support from the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd v.

State of Maharashtra & Ors1 he submits that under Section 10(6) of

the ULC Act for the authority to get power to take possession, a period

of 30 days must lapse between the date of service of notice and the

date on which the possession was taken under Section 10(6). He would

submit that the accepted mode of taking possession of vacant land is

by way of recording panchnama by drawing support from the decision

1 Bombay High Court OS WP 1461 of 2009, decided on 9 Nov. 2011.

Patil-SR (ch) 14 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

of the Dhaniram v. State of MP2. He submits that the similar view has

been taken by the Gujarat High Court in Indrajitsing P. Goel v.

Competent Authority3 where due to infirmity in the panchnama where

the address of witnesses were vague and in that case it was shown that

the constructions were existing in the suit land which was not reflected

in the panchnama gave rise to the suspicion that the same was not

prepared on site. He submits that the ULC Act was repealed by the

repeal Act of 1999 which was adopted by the State of Maharashtra on

29th November 2007 and by virtue of Section 3A of the repeal Act if the

possession is not taken, the Plaintiff will be entitled to the ownership

of land. In support of his submissions, he relies on following decisions :

Johnson & Johnson Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors4
Gopalrao v. State of Mah5.
Krishnakanth S. Parikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 6
Dhaniram v. State of MP7
Indrajitsing P. Goel v. Competent Authority8
State of UP v. Hari Ram9
Voltas Ltd v. Addl. Collector & Competent Authority 10

2 2012 SCC OnLine MP 5050.
3 Gujarat High Court in Spl. Civil Appl. No. 6111 of 1991 decided on 25th Aug. 2006.
4 Bombay High Court OS WP 1461 of 2009, decided on 9 Nov. 2011.
5 2019(3) Mh.L.J. 101.
6 Bombay High Court OS Suit No. 341 of 2012, decided on 1st Aug. 2017.
7 2012 SCC OnLine MP 5050.
8 Gujarat High Court in Spl. Civil Appl. No. 6111 of 1991 decided on 25th Aug. 2006.
9 (2013) 4 SCC 280.
10 Bombay High Court WP 8356 of 2006 decided on 25th July 2008.

Patil-SR (ch) 15 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

13. Per contra Mr. Patil, learned AGP has taken this Court through

the averments in the plaint and would submit that there is no challenge

to the validity of notice issued under Section 10(5) of ULC Act and only

what is challenged is possession. He draws attention of this Court to

the possession receipt of 17th April 2006 and submits that the same

has been signed by the DW-2 and that the only panchnama has not

been signed for which an appropriate explanation has been given that

there was no person who came forward to sign the panchnama. He

would further submit that the evidence of DW-2 shows that the

possession was taken on 17th April 2006 as the officer went to the site

and has deposed personally about the site visit and there is

documentation in the form of execution of possession receipt and

panchnama. He submits that there are no rules which prescribe the

manner in which possession has to be taken and the documentation

constitutes sufficient evidence of taking over of possession. He relies

upon the decision of the Apex Court in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v.

M.D.Bhagwat11 and submits that what is only required is for the

authority to go upon the land and do some act which will indicate that

the authority has taken possession of the land and that presence of the

owner to effectuate taking of possession is not necessary. He submits

that in the concurring judgment it has been held that there is no

11 (1976) 1 SCC 700.

Patil-SR (ch) 16 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

absolute and inviolable rule that merely going to the spot and making a

declaration by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to

constitute the taking of possession of the land in every case and the

act of Tahsildar in going on the spot inspecting the land was held to be

sufficient to taking of possession. He submits that under Section

114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a presumption arises that the

judicial and official acts have been regularly performed and the

presumption though rebuttable has not been rebutted by the

Plaintiffs. He has taken this Court in detail through the evidence of

DW-2 and would submit that the evidence has not been shaken in the

cross-examination to rebut the presumption under Section 114(e) of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He submits that the burden was upon

the Plaintiff to prove that DW-2 did not visit the suit property for the

purpose of taking possession. He would submit that the notice under

Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, the possession receipt, the panchnama

and the notification under Section 11(7) of ULC Act dated 23 rd January,

2007 intimating the Plaintiff about taking over possession when read

together raises a presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. He would further submit that PW-1 is the partner

of the firm and has no personal knowledge about the events which had

occurred. He submits that the power of attorney cannot depose on

behalf of the principal. He would further submit that the PW-1 has

Patil-SR (ch) 17 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

admitted in the cross-examination that the suit property as on date

stands in the name of the government and that the owners have

received the notices. He would submit that none of the owners had

been examined by the Plaintiffs in support of their case. He draws

support from the following decisions :

Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D.Bhagwat12
Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam13
Banda Development Authority v. Motilal Agarwal14
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Harayana15
NAL Layout Residents Assn. v. BDA16
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Dayanand17
Vijendra Kumar v. A.P. Charitable and Religious
Institutions & Endwoment Deptt18
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd19

14. In rejoinder Mr Jain would distinguish the decisions relied upon

by the learned AGP and would submit that the decision in the case of

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) in fact would support the case of

Plaintiff as PW-1 has deposed that he had knowledge as he had his site

office on the said land and he is in possession since 2005. He submits

that the provisions of Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872

12 (1976) 1 SCC 700.
13 (1996) 8 SCC 259.
14 (2011) 5 SCC 394.
15 (2012) 1 SCC 792.
16 (2018) 12 SCC 400.
17 (2023) 5 SCC 381.
18 (2018) 2 SCC 555.
19 (2005) 2 SCC 217.

Patil-SR (ch) 18 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

provide that the Court may presume existence of certain facts and the

finding of Trial Court that possession was not taken over was not

presumed by Trial Court. He submits that the decisions relied upon by

the learned AGP would in fact support the case of the Plaintiff as

regards the mode of taking possession.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

15. The following points arise for determination:

[i] Whether the Defendant No 4 had taken possession of the
7,602.45 square meters of surplus vacant land on 17 th April,
2006 in accordance with law?
[ii] Whether the period of 30 days from date of service of notice
as contemplated by Section 10(5) of the ULC Act had expired
on 17th April, 2006 ?
[ii] Whether the Plaintiffs were in possession of the surplus
vacant land on 6th December 2007, i.e., on the date of repeal
of the ULC Act?

As to Point No. [i], [ii] and [iii]

16. All the points are interlinked and therefore taken up for

consideration together. The discussion on the Point No.[i] would also

involve consideration of Point No.[ii] as it seeks answers on two issues;

whether possession has been taken by the Defendant No.4 on 17 th

April, 2006 in a manner known to law and even if the answer is in the

affirmative, whether on 17th April, 2006, the period of 30 days as

Patil-SR (ch) 19 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

contemplated by Section 10(5) of ULC Act had expired.

17. The statutory scheme of Section 10 of ULC Act is that the

Competent Authority under Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 causes a

notification to be published giving particulars of vacant land held by

the Declarant in excess of ceiling limit stating that the vacant land is to

be acquired by the State Government and inviting claims of interested

persons and after considering the claims the Competent Authority

determines the nature and extent of such claims and passes necessary

orders under Sub-Section (2) of Section 10. Sub-Section (3) of Section

10 provides that after publication of notification under Sub-Section (1)

of Section 10, the Competent Authority may publish a notification

declaring that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification

under Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 is deemed to have been acquired

by the State Government and upon such publication such land shall be

deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government. Sub-

Section (4) places restrictions on transfer of the notified land between

the period commencing on date of publication of Sub-Section (1)

notification and ending with date specified in Sub-Section (3)

notification. Under Sub-Section (5), where the land is deemed to have

vested in State Government under Sub-Section (3), the Competent

Authority may by notice in writing order the person in possession to

surrender or deliver possession within thirty days of service of notice

Patil-SR (ch) 20 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

and in case of non compliance with the order, the possession may be

taken by the Competent Authority. Sub -Section (5) and (6) of Section

10 reads as under:

"10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit.
(1)...
(2)...
(3)....
(4)....
(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State
Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority may,
by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession
of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State
Government or to any person duly authorised by the State
Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the
notice.
(6)" If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made
under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take
possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the
concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by
such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose
use such force as may be necessary.
Explanation........"

18. The provision of Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was considered in

the decision of Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs State of Maharashtra

(supra) wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court after analysing

Section 10(5) and Section 10(6) of the ULC Act has held that the

statutory scheme of the ULC Act is that the person in possession of

land of which possession is to be taken is to be directed by a notice in

writing to deliver the possession and is to be given 30 days time to

deliver the possession and if the possession is not delivered within that

time, then, the competent authority becomes entitled to take

possession of the land even by using force, if necessary. Learned

Patil-SR (ch) 21 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

Division Bench has further held that the provision does not confer

power on any authority to curtail the period of 30 days which the

person in possession is to be given to deliver the possession.

19. In the present proceedings, Interim Application (L) No. 29405 of

2024 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was filed by the Plaintiff for

leading additional evidence in respect of notice dated 17 th March, 2006

being issued under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act on 20 th March, 2006

and the extract of Outward Register of ULC Department showing

dispatch on 21st March, 2006. The photocopy of these two documents

were annexed as Exhibit "3" and Exhibit "4" to the affidavit-in-reply of

the State Government. The Deponent of the Affidavit in reply dated

15th February, 2016 has stated on oath that the record from the office

of the Additional Collector and Competent Authority of the ULC

Department shows that notice under Section 10(5) of ULC Act was

issued on 20th March, 2006 and related entry in Outward Register of

the office at Serial No 2370 shows that notice was sent by hand

delivery.

20. The said documents being admitted documents, Section 58 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that admitted facts need not be

proved. Learned AGP would not dispute the genuineness and

authenticity of the said documents as the same have been annexed to

the affidavit-in-reply of the Government itself. The application filed

Patil-SR (ch) 22 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is therefore allowed and the said two

documents, i.e., extract of record from Office of Competent Authority

under ULC showing notice dated 17th March, 2006 issued on 20th March,

2006 and the relevant extract of the Outward Register of the ULC

Department dated 21th March, 2006 showing the despatch of notice

dated 17th March, 2006 at Serial No 2270 are taken on record in

exercise of powers under Rule 27(d) of Order 41 of CPC. Although the

extracts are photocopies of the original register, in the application

filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, necessary foundation has been

laid for leading secondary evidence as the documents in question were

in the sole custody and possession of Defendant no.1 and are sought

to be proved against the Defendant No.1. The said documents have

not been disputed by the Defendants to be the copy of original and

having being proved are marked Exhibit-35 and Exhibit-36.

21. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the Plaintiffs claim to be in

possession on date of repeal of ULC Act on the ground that the

possession has not been taken and even if taken is not in accordance

with law. Considering the statutory provisions noted above, the

issuance of notice and service thereof assumes significance. I am,

therefore, of the view that these documents are necessary to enable

this Court to pronounce judgment and for full and effectual

adjudication of the subject matter.

Patil-SR (ch) 23 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

22. I shall first consider whether the evidence on record establishes

that DW-2 had taken possession of the suit property on 17 th April,

2006. The said issue will involve consideration of two sub-issues as to

whether the possession has been taken in a manner known to law and

whether the possession was taken upon expiry of period of 30 days as

contemplated by Section 10(5) of ULC Act. It cannot be disputed that

for purpose of taking possession of the excess land which was vacant

land, it was necessary for the concerned officials to visit the property

and carry out such act as will demonstrate the taking of possession.

From the evidence, I find that DW-2 has not visited the suit property as

discussed hereinafter. PW-1 has produced the agreement for sale

dated 31st December, 2005-Exhibit 17 and the Agreement of Sale dated

4th October, 2005-Exhibit 18, which records the existence of various

structures on the suit property. PW-1 has deposed about construction

of site office on the larger property by Plaintiff No 27 and deployment

of security guards. He has further deposed that there are 54 chawls on

the larger property and 650 tenants are living thereon. This evidence

of Plaintiffs as regards the factual position at site remains

uncontroverted and in the cross-examination there is not even a

suggestion that the entire larger land including the surplus vacant land

was vacant land and there are no structures on the said land. On the

contrary, the pleading in the written statement is that the structures

Patil-SR (ch) 24 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

on the suit land are unauthorised which constitutes admission of the

Defendants.

23. Against this deposition of PW-1, if the cross-examination of DW-

2 is perused, DW-2 has stated that the suit property was vacant land

and there were no structures either on the surplus land or on the land

within the ceiling limit. The cross-examination establishes that DW-2

was not aware of the factual position at site and that would be in a

case where DW-2 had not visited the site for taking possession.

24. Another ground for not accepting DW-2's visit to site is that in

the cross-examination DW-2 has stated that she went to the suit

property from her office by auto rickshaw as per the address

mentioned in the ULC letter. The notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC

Act marked as Exhibit-13 mentions the address as John P. Ferreira,

Martin Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050, which is the residential

address of the owners. The notice in the Schedule refers to the Survey

Numbers of the vacant land without any further information sufficient

to identify the suit land. Based on the Survey Numbers, DW-2's claim

to have identified the exact location and having visited the site is

unacceptable.

25. Apart from the above, it was necessary to establish that not only

possession has been taken but possession has been taken in a manner

known to law. DW-2 has deposed that she had visited the land and

Patil-SR (ch) 25 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

confirmed the land to be acquired as per the plan and after making

inquiries with the people in adjoining area in respect of the owner

coming forward to hand over possession as there was no person

coming forward, she took possession of the said land admeasuring

7,602.45 square meters. She has deposed that she had personally

taken possession of the land admeasuring 7,602.45 square meters

bearing Survey No.42/3, CTS No 9, Survey No 51(pt), CT No.15, Survey

No.6/1 (pt), CTS No.17, Survey No.6/a(pt), CTS No.21 as per plan on

17th April 2006 at 2.30 p.m. She has further deposed that at the time of

taking possession she had prepared possession receipt on 17 th April,

2006 at 2.30 pm and after drawing the possession receipt, she had

prepared the panchnama at 2.40 p.m. on 17 th April 2006. She has

further deposed that the panchnama was prepared by her in her

handwriting at the site and she requested the people from the locality

to sign as panchas, but they refused to do so. She has further deposed

that as the panchas did not come forward to sign the panchnama, the

same does not bear the signature of panchas. She has produced the

original plan along with the notice received by her office. The sum and

substance of her deposition is that possession was taken as per plan

which is evidenced from the possession receipt and the panchnama,

though panchnama is not signed by witness due to their refusal.

Patil-SR (ch) 26 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

26. In the cross examination, DW-2 has admitted that she did not

demarcate the place before taking possession and there were no

boundary marks available to ascertain the suit property at the time of

taking possession. The suit property, of which possession was to be

taken, admeasured 7604.45 square meters comprising portions of four

different survey numbers and was part of larger property of about

34,644 square meters. DW-2 claims to have taken possession of

different portions of four different survey numbers by identifying the

portions as per the plan marked at Exhibit-30. Perusal of Exhibit-30

would indicate that the excess land are portions of CTS Nos.9, 15, 17

and 21. It is not that possession can be taken of any land. It has to be

established that possession was taken of the land declared surplus.

DW-2 has admitted that there was no demarcation on site and no

boundary marks available to ascertain the suit property. Considering

the magnitude of the vacant land, there is no gainsaying that without

any demarcation at site and without the boundary marks, the

identification of the excess land itself is an impossibility. In absence of

correct identification of excess land by way of actual demarcation, it is

not proved that DW-2 had taken possession by visiting the site on 17 th

April 2006.

27. Another aspect that militates against the Defendants is that in

case of vacant sites, one of the accepted modes of taking possession is

Patil-SR (ch) 27 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

by visiting of site and preparing of panchnama by State Authority. In

that context, DW-2 has deposed that possession was taken by

executing the possession receipt and preparing the panchnama. As far

as panchnama is concerned, there is no signature of panchas on the

panchnama and a cyclostyled format has been filled in by the DW-2 in

her own handwriting. The explanation tendered is that no person was

willing to come forward to act as panchas. It is thus clear that there is

no evidence to demonstrate that the possession was taken in presence

of any independent witness. Mr. Patil, learned AGP would argue that

there is sufficient explanation given about why the panchnama was not

signed by any person. Irrespective of the explanation, the fact remains

that the panchnama was not signed by the witness and thus the

document cannot be used in support of the Defendant's case of taking

over possession. The whole purpose of preparing panchnama is to

corroborate the taking over of possession in presence of independent

witnesses. If the panchnama is not endorsed by independent

witnesses, the panchnama has no meaning and cannot be used to

support the factum of taking over possession.

28. The other document evidencing taking over possession is the

unilateral possession receipt executed by DW-2 is a cyclostyled format

stating that possession has been taken on 17 th April 2006 at 2.30 p.m.

in the presence of panchas which the possession receipt has been

Patil-SR (ch) 28 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

signed by Defendant No.4. Apart from oral deposition of DW-2, there

is no witness examined to corroborate the execution of the possession

receipt at site. The office peon who is stated to have accompanied DW-

2 who was a material witness to corroborate the case of visit at the site

and execution of possession receipt was not examined by the

Defendants. DW-2 has deposed that possession receipt has been

prepared on 17th April, 2006 at 2.30 pm prior to the making of

panchnama on 17th April,2006 at 2.40 pm.

29. To establish the act of taking over possession, essentially the

visit of the concerned official to the suit property is necessitated. The

manner in which the possession of vacant land is to be taken has been

subject matter of various decisions which has relied upon by Learned

AGP. In the case of Balwant Narayan Bhagde (supra) in the context of

taking over possession under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Apex

Court has held that the mode of taking possession would be for the

authority to go on the land and do some act which would indicate that

the authority has taken possession of the land. In the said decision

Bhagwati J. concurring by a separate discussion has held that there can

be no question of taking symbolic possession nor would possession on

paper be enough and how the actual possession is taken would depend

upon the nature of land. It was further held that in the facts of that

case, the act of Tahsildar in going on the spot and inspecting the land

Patil-SR (ch) 29 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

for the purpose of determining what part is waste and arable and

should therefore be taken possession of and determine its extent was

sufficient to constitute taking of possession.

30. The judicial pronouncements sets out the necessity of some act

on the part of the authorities, on the basis of which it can be held that

possession of the land has been taken over by the Respondent No.1.

The most crucial element is the visit of authorised person to the site

and it must be proved that on the relevant date and time, the

authorised person had visited the site and had done some act by

reason of which possession of suit property could be said to have

been taken. The unilateral possession receipt executed by DW-2 and

the preparation of panchnama without signature of any independent

witness does not support the case of visit by DW-2 to the site on 17 th

April, 2006.

31. Even when tested on the touchstone of preponderance of

probabilities, the evidence on record does not establish the visit of

DW-2 to the suit land as neither the address based on which she claims

to have visited the site was sufficient to identify the suit property, nor

there was any demarcation on site of the land of which the possession

was to be taken out of the larger land and apart from possession

receipt which is a unilateral document, there is no evidence of

independent witness to establish the presence of DW-2 at the site. It is

Patil-SR (ch) 30 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

difficult to accept that possession of area of 7,602.45 square meters

out of 34,644.61 square meters was taken by DW-2 with the help of an

office peon without any boundary marks and without demarcation of

the said surplus land on site.

32. In the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra) the Apex Court

following the decision in the case of Balwant Narayan Bhagde (supra)

had held that one of the accepted mode of taking possession is the

recording of memorandum or panchnama by the Land Acquisition

Officer in the presence of witnesses, signed by them that would

constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to

take physical possession of the acquired land.

33. In the case of Banda Development Authority (supra) the Apex

Court has summarised the principles after taking into consideration the

catena of decision and has held thus in paragraph 37 :

"37. The principles which can be culled out from the above
noted judgments are:

(i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act
would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land.

(ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the State
authority concerned to go to the spot and prepare a
panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to
constitute taking of possession.

(iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/
structure exists, mere going on the spot by the authority
concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking
possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority concerned
will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/
structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take
possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get
their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the

Patil-SR (ch) 31 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an
inference that the possession of the acquired land has not
been taken.

(iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may
not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take
physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it
will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by
preparing appropriate document in the presence of
independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such
document.

(v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/
instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total
compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3A) and
substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in
furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court
may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land
has been taken."

34. In the case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra) the Apex Court

followed the decision in the case of Balwant Narayan Bhagde (supra)

and Banda Development Authority (supra). In the case of NAL Layout

Residents Assn. (supra) and Tamil Naidu Housing Board vs A.Viswam

(supra), the same principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court.

Although the said decisions referred to be by the learned AGP are in

the context of taking over possession of land under the provisions of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the principles laid down in the said

decisions squarely apply to every case in which the possession is to be

taken over by the Government officials especially in the case of vacant

land.

35. It is well settled that one of the accepted mode of taking

possession, in the case of acquisition of vast tracts of lands as it is not

Patil-SR (ch) 32 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

possible to take physical possession, is to take symbolic possession by

preparing appropriate documents in the presence of independent

witnesses and getting their signatures on such document. The act of

visiting the spot and preparing the panchnama is ordinarily treated as

sufficient to constitute taking of possession. In the present case, the

DW-2 claims to have taken possession by following the accepted mode

of visiting the spot and taking possession, which is not established

from the evidence on record.

36. The Trial Court has accepted that DW-2 had visited the site as per

the address mentioned in the ULC notice on the ground that DW-2 is

Government Officer and has taken possession of so many lands under

law and that the possession receipt and panchnama establishes the

taking of possession by DW-2. The Trial Court failed to notice that the

panchnama is not signed by any independent witness and cannot

substantiate the case of Defendants and the possession receipt which

is unilateral document does not corroborate the visit of DW-2 to the

suit property.

37. On the aspect of continued Plaintiff's possession, PW-1 had

deposed that no notice under Section 10(5) was received by the

owners and that the Plaintiffs have obtained copy of the ULC notice

under the RTI Act and had produced the said notice along with the RTI

receipt. However in the cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that

Patil-SR (ch) 33 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

notice at Exhibits 10 to 13 were received by the owners and Exhibit 13

is the Section 10(5) ULC Act notice. In further cross-examination, PW-1

has stated that the owners did not inform him as to when they had

received the notice at Exhibit-13 and no discussion took place. The

admission of PW-1 only establishes that PW-1 had no knowledge about

receipt of notice by the owners. The Plaintiffs have not examined the

owners of the subject property to establish that there was no service

of notice upon the owners. The evidence on record thus establishes

service of Section 10(5) notice upon the owners.

38. Even if service of notice upon owners is accepted, it is not the

service of notice upon the owners which is significant but the date of

of service of notice upon the owners in the context of Section 10(5)

and (6) of the ULC Act to compute the period of 30 days. The

additional evidence which has come on record is the extract of

Outward Register showing the dispatch of the notice under Section

10(5) of the ULC Act which is dated 17th March 2006 on 21st March, 2006

under Serial No.2270 which is delivered on the same day by hand

delivery.

39. The position of law is well settled by the decision of Division

Bench of this Court in Johnson & Johnson Ltd v. State of Maharashtra

(supra) that Section 10(5) lays down that the person in possession shall

have 30 days to deliver possession and the provision does not confer

Patil-SR (ch) 34 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

any power on the Authority to curtail the period of 30 days which the

person in possession is to be given to deliver possession. The Division

Bench held that under Section 10(6), for the Authority to get the power

to take possession under Section 10(6), a period of 30 days must lapse

between the date of service of notice and the date on which

possession is taken under Section 10(6). The said decision was

subsequently followed in Gopalrao Shiva Ikhankar v. State of

Maharashtra (supra).

40. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that the notice

dated 17th March 2006 was despatched from the office of Respondent

No.1 on 21st March 2006 and was hand delivered on the same day. Even

if it is accepted that the possession has been taken on 17 th April 2006

by the Defendant No 4, the Authority had no power to take possession

as the period of 30 days from date of service of notice would lapse on

20th April, 2006 and the possession even if taken is not in accordance

with law.

41. Before the Trial Court, the evidence as regards despatch of the

notice was not produced, which is permitted to be produced before

this Court by way of additional evidence. The Trial Court had therefore

held that the notice was issued on 17th March, 2006 and 30 days period

had elapsed.

42. In the case of State of UP v. Hari Ram (supra) the Apex Court has

Patil-SR (ch) 35 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

discussed the effect of the repeal Act of No.15 of 1999 on Sub-Section

(3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act. The Apex Court has held that the

mere vesting of the land under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC

Act would not confer any right on the State Government to have a de

facto possession of vacant land and the State has to establish the

delivery of peaceful possession under Sub-Section (5) of Section 10 of

the ULC Act or forcible dispossession under Sub-Section (6) of Section

10 of the ULC Act and on failure to establish any of the situations, the

land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the ULC Act.

The decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Dayanand (supra) was rendered

in context of provisions of Land Acquisition Act and is distinguishable.

43. In the instant case, the evidence on record establishes that DW-2

had not visited the suit property on 17th April, 2006 at 2.30 pm and that

there was no act committed by DW-2 on the suit property which would

constitute taking of possession. The possession had to be taken in

accordance with law firstly after 30 days of service of notice upon the

Plaintiffs and secondly in a manner known to law. Even assuming

arguendo that the possession was taken on 17 th April, 2006, the period

of 30 days from date of service of notice i.e. from 21 st March, 2006 had

not lapsed and thus the taking of possession was not in accordance

with law.

Patil-SR (ch) 36 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

44. The Plaintiffs have examined PW-1 who is partner of Plaintiff No

27 and constituted attorney for Plaintiff Nos 1 to 26. He has deposed

that he does not personal knowledge of the events occurred prior to

the year 2005. The Plaintiff Nos 1 to 6 who are owners have not been

examined. The question is whether there was any necessity of

examining the other Plaintiffs as witnesses. The relief claimed by the

Plaintiffs is premised on the ground that no possession was taken on

17th April, 2006. The Plaintiff No.27 has deposed about the execution

of agreements dated 31st December 2005 and 4th October, 2005 and

acquiring rights in the property and the existence of structures on the

larger land including the site office of Plaintiff No.27. The possession

is stated to have been taken on 17th April, 2006 i.e. after rights were

acquired by Plaintiff No 27 firm and possession of the larger land was

with Plaintiff No 27 firm. PW-1 has deposed in respect of facts within

his knowledge and it was not necessary to examine the erstwhile

owners. In any event the evidence shows receipt of notice issued under

Section 10(5) by owners and the despatch of the notice on 21 st March,

2006. In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd (supra), the

Apex Court has held that the power of attorney holder can appear only

as a witness in his personal capacity and whatever knowledge he has

about the case he can state on oath. In the instant case, there is no

deposition by PW-1 in respect of facts within the knowledge of other

Patil-SR (ch) 37 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

Plaintiffs.

45. Mr. Patil, learned AGP would argue that there is no challenge to

validity of the notice issued under Section 10(5) of ULC Act. The plaint

seeks the relief that the possession of the land was with the Plaintiff as

on the date of repeal of ULC Act, i.e., on 6 th December 2007. The case

of the Plaintiffs is not based on the invalidity of the notice under

Section 10(5) of ULC Act but is premised on the benefit available by

reason of repeal of ULC Act. I have already held that possession has

not been taken in manner known to law, the consequence would be

that the Plaintiffs continues to be in possession of the land even after

17th April 2006 and therefore on the date of repeal of the ULC Act, the

Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land.

46. Reliance is placed by learned AGP on illustration (e) of Section

114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads thus :

"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. -- The
Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely
to have happened, regard being had to the common course of
natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in
their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Illustrations :

(a)...
(b)...
(c)...
(d)...
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly
performed;
(i) ......"

Patil-SR (ch) 38 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

47. Section 114(e) provides that the Court may presume that judicial

and official acts have been regularly performed. Section 4 of Evidence

Act provides that whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court

may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless

and until it is disproved or may call for proof of it. Section 114 is

general section dealing with presumption of facts which merely affects

the burden of proof. The presumption that judicial and official acts

have been regularly performed is itself not evidence but only makes

prima facie case in favour of party in whose favour its exists. Even if it is

accepted that the presumption was raised in favour of the Defendants,

the evidence on record when considered amounts to rebuttal of

presumption raised in favour of the Defendants.

48. The evidence on record does not establish that on 17 th April,

2006 at 2.30 pm, Defendant No 4 had visited the suit property and had

taken the possession of the vacant land admeasuring 7602.45 square

meters. As the notice under Section 10(5) of ULC has been proved to

have been despatched by the office of Competent Authority on 21 st

March, 2006, the period of 30 days had not elapsed on 17 th April, 2006

and the Authority had no power to take possession of the vacant land

on 17th April, 2006. As a consequence, the Plaintiffs continued to be in

possession of the vacant land on date of repeal of ULC Act i.e. on 6 th

December, 2007. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos (i) to (iii).

Patil-SR (ch) 39 of 40
FA 1019-13.doc

49. In light of the discussion above, the following order is passed:

: ORDER :

(a) First Appeal is allowed.

(b) The impugned judgment and order dated 19th December, 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(d) Decree to be drawn up accordingly.

50. For reasons stated hereinabove, Interim Application (st.) No. 29405 of 2024 stands allowed. The other Interim Applications/Civil applications stand disposed of.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Patil-SR (ch) 40 of 40 Signed by: Sachin R. Patil Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/12/2024 19:38:48

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court