1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8894 OF 2009 Aarmugam Arjun Toplan .. Petitioner Vs Union of India and ors .. Respondents Mr Rahul Pandey, i/b M/s Pandey & Co, for the petitioner. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 17/12/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by the City Civil Court and the order dated 3.7.2009 passed by the Estate Officer and the Divisional Engineer (East), Western Railway, Mumbai Central (for short, “the Estate Officer”). By the order dated 6.8.2009, the City Civil Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.7.2009 as not maintainable. 3. Mr Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the appeal is held to be not maintainable, the T 2 petitioner may be allowed to address the court against the order dated 3.7.2009 passed by the Estate Officer. I have, therefore, heard Mr Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on merits and with his assistance gone through the material on record. He took me through the order dated 3.7.2009 and vehemently submitted that respondent no.1 have not placed any material on record to show that the land, on which the petitioner’s structure is standing, belong to Railways. He further submitted that the material produced by the petitioner before the City Civil Court in support of his contention was not considered by the learned Judge in proper perspective and has wrongly held that he is unauthorised occupant on the railway land. He then invited my attention to the property card, produced on record as Exhibit J-1 to the writ petition, to submit that the petitioner’s structure is on the private property owned by Nanabhay Bayaramji Jijibhay. 5. I have perused the impugned order so also other material placed on record. I find sufficient material on record, which the City Civil Court seems to have taken into consideration, which show that the land on which the petitioner’s structure is standing belongs to western railway and it being railway land, satisfies the definition of Public Premises as given by section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised 3 Occupants) Act, 1971. Respondent no.1 has produced on record the railway land sketch to show that the petitioner is an encroacher on the railway land. As against this, I have also perused the property card, produced on record for the first time in this petition and description of the property given therein. It is not possible to hold that the said property card is of the property in dispute. The petitioner has not brought any other material on record to show that the property described in the property card and the property in dispute is one and the same. Moreover, the property card was not produced before the City Civil Court by the petitioner. Insofar as the other documents, namely photo-pass, extract of electrol roll, Ration card etc are concerned, in my opinion, even these documents will not help him to establish any right in the property in dispute. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that even in respect of these documents, there is a clear finding recorded by the court below that these documents have material alterations and corrections without there being initials made by the author of these documents. The petitioner was also called upon by the City Civil Court to produce on record permission of the BMC for construction of the structure in dispute. The petitioner could not and did not produce any such material in support of his contentions. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition.The petition, 4 therefore, fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)