Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

said notice of motion though the learned Judge of the City Civil Court stayed the communication of MCGM dated 17 th January 2015, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court specifically rejected the contention of Respondent No.4A to 4E that their predecessor-in-title was put in possession of the said land by making observations in paragraph 41, which read thus :

"In view of such facts prima facie appearing on record, the contention of the Plaintiffs in the notice of motiuon, and prayer clause (a)(i) that they being in possession of the suit plot, it shall be protected, cannot be held as tenable one. Once it is established on record that the suit plot is occupied by hutment dwellers, and the Plaintiffs / their predecessors have accepted the possession of hutment dwellers on the suit plot, now the Plaintiffs cannot contend that they are in possession of the suit plot or any part thereof. Consequently, the contention of the Plaintiff in the notice of motion for development or re-development of the suit plot by themselves, does not appear prima facie tenable in the eye of law. Since no possession is established by the Plaintiffs, they are not entitled for any interim injunction to protect the same, and develop or redevelop the property without being in possession, by getting temporary injunction order."