Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17454 OF 2022:
9. The Interim Application has been filed by the Appellants under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to produce the documents and records annexed thereto. The Application pleads that the Appellants were not permitted to file the Written Statement and the suit proceeded ex-parte. It is pleaded that the property card of the land on which the structures were erected belonged to State Government and is in possession of MMRDA. It is pleaded that on 18 th October, 2006 MMRDA had asked for police protection for demolition to be carried out by MMRDA at Kokri Agar where the tenants were Sairaj 26 of 49 First Appeal No. 1546 of 2010 (f).doc rehabilitated by Additional Collector and the document makes it clear that demolition has been carried out by MMRDA. The Application purports to place on record the communication between the State Government and the Appellant regarding the rehabilitation of the eligible 23 slum dwellers.
Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad16 Satish Dalichand Shah v. State of Maharashtra17

19. Mr. Patil would submit that the land does not belong to MMRDA, the demolition was not carried out by the MMRDA and MMRDA could not be saddled with the liability to provide for alternative accommodation.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

20. The facts of the case and the submissions canvassed would give rise to the following points for determination:-

(i) Whether the Appellant can be permitted to adduce additional evidence in Appeal in the absence of any pleading?

30. On aspect of demolition, PW-1 has deposed that the Defendant No 1's officer had approached on 10 th March, 2006 and threatened demolition for which Plaintiff filed L.C. Suit No 4567 of 2006 seeking injunction against demolition. PW-1 has deposed that on 19 th October, 2006 the Defendants with help of MMRDA demolished the suit premises without following due process of law and the suit came to be withdrawn. PW-1 has produced the communication dated 27 th November, 2006- Exhibit 9 addressed by MCGM to the Plaintiff that the demolition action has been carried out by MMRDA. There is no cross examination of PW-1 on this aspect. During cross examination, MCGM has not questioned its communication and stands by the said communication even before this Court.

35. Once it is established that the demolition of the suit structure was illegal, the consequence would be grant of relief of reconstruction. The plaint seeks mandatory injunction to the Defendants to reconstruct the structure or permit the Plaintiff to reconstruct the structure at the cost of Defendants or in the alternative to provide permanent alternate accommodation to the Plaintiff. As the structure was protected structure and eviction can take place for public purpose, the liability for providing alternate accommodation rests on the authority undertaking the public project and causing demolition for the said purpose. As in the present case there was no notice issued to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is unaware of the authority who had carried out the demolition. There was no contest to the suit and from the evidence on record, it cannot be deduced whether the Corporation or MMRDA has carried out the demolition. Even before this Court, MCGM and MMRDA have staunchly maintained that they have not carried out the demolition. The factum of demolition has been established from the evidence and the question which remains unanswered from the evidence is the identity of the authority carrying out the demolition. The evidence on record is not sufficient to conclude even on pre- ponderance of probability that MCGM had carried out the demolition.