Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner who has moved this perjury petition praying that this Court holds an inquiry as per the provisions of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by recording a finding on the Map enclosed and marked as 'Exhibit-F' in Writ Petition No. 3055 of 2018, which came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 31 July 2019. The petitioner has accordingly prayed that this Court appoint an Officer to file the complaint as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to lodge a complaint against the respondents before the Criminal Court, who are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 209 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is prayed that they be Varsha 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC accordingly prosecuted and contempt proceedings be also initiated against them. The prayers made in this notice are required to be noted, which read thus:

3. We note the necessary facts in regard to the petitioner having approached the Court in Writ Petition No. 3055 of 2018 assailing an eviction order dated 17 May 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority on an appeal filed under section 35(1A) of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Slums Act'). Accordingly, on detailed Varsha 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC reasons as set out in such order, the applicant/petitioner's claim of being an occupant of the premises and more particularly of structure No. 88(A) was rejected.

2. SRA also to produce its original records qua the subject matter of the present petition on the next date.
3. Stand over to 23rd July, 2017".

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the original record was produced before the Court. After examining the original record as received by the SRA, the Court vide a detailed order dated 31 July 2019 (supra) rejected the petitioner's case in the writ petition.

6. The observations made in the said order are quite significant, more particularly when the Court considered the original records as produced before it, which contained all the relevant documents. The Court categorically recorded that the original map in question (at page 123 of the compilation as produced before the Court) did not show existence of a separate shed marked at 88-A, it only showed one structure marked at 88. The Court has also observed that the case of the petitioner was that his father along with other family members, were occupying the shed which was earmarked as 'No. 88'. The petitioner, however, alleged that he was occupying an independent structure adjacent to the shed of his father, which Varsha 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC according to him, was earmarked as 'No. 88A'. The respondents, including the Society, throughout contended that there was no such independent existence of shed 'No. 88A' and that the applicant-petitioner had merely extended the roof, and that, there was no habitable area where the petitioner could reside with his family. The said orders passed by the Court dismissing the petition are required to be noted, which read thus:

4. Previously, we had heard the petition from time to time trying to ascertain the truth through the rival contentions and material on record. One of the factors which had caught our eye was a map presented by the Varsha 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC petitioner at Exh. F at page 59 of the petition. As per the averments made in the petition, this map Exh. F was submitted by the landlord along with survey plan on 22.1.2009 which contained the premises in question earmarked as '88A'. If this was correct, this would be one of the significant factors which would some bearing on the petitioner's claim. We had, therefore, gone deeper into the subject and inquired with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. We had called for original records. Further affidavits were also allowed to be filed. Learned counsel for the SRA today produced before us the original file containing all documents presented by the developer with an application for permission to develop the area of the slum already declared. The map in question is found at page 123 of the compilation. This map does not show existence of separate shed marked as '88A'. It only shows one structure marked as '88'. In fact, there was no indication of any independent structure marked as '88A' which is in conflict with the map produced by the petitioner at Exh. F. The documents annexed with the said application of the development contained a list of occupants. It also at Sr. No. 88 shows the name of the father without there being any mention of the son occupying any independent structure. A copy of the map contained in the file of SRA is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Original file be returned.