Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On 31st October, 1983 a complaint was lodged by one Shri Ramdas Naik, the then Corroborator in respect of the structure of the plaintiff. Shri Soman, the then Additional Commissioner perused the file in respect of the inquiry and found that fraud had been perpitrated in the inquiry before the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. He found that Shri Keer who had been examined in the proceedings had been dismissed from service of the Bombay Suburban District way back on 16th August, 1977. The Additional Commissioner, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 20th September, 1984 calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the order dated 24th August, 1983 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner should not be cancelled and why the structure of the plaintiff should not be demolished under section 351 of the Act. The plaintiff vide his reply dated 3rd October, 1984, inter alia, challenged the authority of the Additional Municipal Commissioner to review the order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. According to the plaintiff, the order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner had become final. The Deputy Municipal commissioner after perusing the relevant record had come to the conclusion that the structure in question was in existence prior to 1962. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner directed the plaintiff to pay Rs. 1000/- for carrying out repairs without prior permission. The said amount of Rs. 1000/- was paid by the plaintiff and the same was accepted by the defendants. The plaintiff was asked to pay the assessment for the years 1962 to 1981 and though the plaintiff contended that the same had already been paid, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 12,125/- and the said amount was accepted and acknowledged by the defendants. The defendants were, therefore, estopped from reagitating the matter again. The plaintiff alleged that the intended action on the part of the Additional Municipal Commissioner are prompted by letter written by Shri Ramdas Naik whom himself by his letter dated 21st September, 1984 stated not to take any action. The plaintiff reasserted that the structure in question was not unauthorised. He pointed out that it was not he who had called Shri Keer from the Survey Department but it was the Dy. Municipal Commissioner who had called him. In fact the plaintiff was not even present when Shri Keer was examined before the Dy. Municipal Commissioner. He learnt about passing of the order by Dy. Municipal Corporation only when he was intimated about it by the Ward Officer. In substance the plaintiff alleged that the structure in question was in existence since 1962 and the same was not liable for action under section 351 of the Act.