skc 1 WP-6746-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6746 OF 2011 Sabirali Qureshi ..Petitioner versus Indian Institute of Technology & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R. G. Megh for Petitioner. Mr. V. Y. Murudkar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 25 August 2011 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Writ Petition is directed against the judgment dated 18th July 2011 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, whereby the Misc. Appeal No. 65 of 2010 came to be dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case the main issue involved was that survey no. 22 of Village Paspoli, Powai, Mumbai, was never acquired by the Government for skc 2 WP-6746-11 I.I.T. and the property standing on the said survey number was belonged to Sir Mohammed Yusuf Trust and the petitioner was the tenant. It is further submitted that though the petitioner in the cross-examination has admitted that subject premises are situate on survey no. 22 and also admitted that the award has been passed in the year 1967, however has contended that the petitioner being an illiterate person did not understand the repercussions of the admissions given by him in his cross-examination and much importance need not be given to these admissions. It was for the I.I.T. to establish whether the subject premises were acquired by the State Government by undertaking land acquisition proceedings and the subject premises was a part and parcel of the award dated 20th November 1967, failure to discharge these obligations by I.I.T., the trial court could not have dismissed the appeal merely on the basis of some admissions given by the petitioner in the cross-examination in this regard. It is therefore contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned order. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the judgment of the Bombay City Civil Court. The skc 3 WP-6746-11 petitioner has given certain vital admissions in his cross-examination which are reflected in paragraph 15 of the judgment, which reads thus : “The Appellant has adduced the evidence. He has relied upon Rent Receipts, Ration Card, certified extract of Voters’ list and Election Identity Card. In my opinion, all these documents at the most would establish the possession of the Appellant over the subject premises. On the basis of these documents, it cannot be said that said property belongs to the Trust and it was not acquired by the Government as per the award dated 20.11.1967. There is hardly any dispute about the service of the notice under Section 4 of the P.P. Act, when proceeding was initiated. After remand of the matter to the Estate Officer for fresh enquiry, the parties were directed to proceed further as if notices were already issued. Appellant has adduced the evidence in his Examination-in-Chief inconsonance with the facts set out in the written statement. However, certain important admissions have been brought on record in his cross-examination. On the basis of this cross-examination, it can be positively said that this is second eviction proceeding, after demolition of the subject premises pursuant to the eviction order passed in the first eviction proceeding. Appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that after rejection of the Writ Petition by the Hon’ble High skc 4 WP-6746-11 Court, the order of eviction was executed by demolishing the structure. He has admitted that other occupants, whose matters were remanded for fresh enquiry to the Estate Officer, have now been ordered to be evicted from the subject premises by the Estate Officer. The order of the Estate Officer has been confirmed by this Court. Those occupants have filed writ petitions in the Hon’ble High Court. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that he does not have any document to show that the property belongs to Sir Mohd. Yusuf Trust. According to him rent receipt is the only document to substantiate this contention. He has admitted that no room number has been mentioned in the rent receipt. In his evidence, he has specifically admitted that the subject premises are situated on Survey No. 22, Village Paspoli. However, he contends that it was not acquired by the award dated 20.11.1967. In his further cross-examination, he has admitted that award has been passed in favour of I.I.T. and as per the said award, this property belongs to I.I.T. So, these are very vital admissions, which, in my opinion, go against the Appellant. Voluminous oral and documentary evidence has been produced by Respondent No.1 to establish that Survey No. 22 was acquired pursuant to the award dated 20.11.1967. It has been established by cogent and reliable documentary evidence that the subject premises are situated on Survey No. 22, now part of C.T.S. No. 67. Witness No.1 examined on skc 5 WP-6746-11 behalf of Respondent No.1 has deposed all these facts in great detail in his oral evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, case of the Appellant that the subject premises are not situated on the land of the Respondent No. 1, cannot be accepted. On the basis of the cogent and reliable evidence, it has been proved that the land bearing Survey No. 22 was acquired by Government for I.I.T. The land belongs to the I.I.T. Since the subject premises are situate on the land bearing Survey No.22, C.T.S No. 67, the same are the public premises.” 5. A perusal of the observations made by the Bombay City Civil Court in paragraph 15, based on the evidence on record would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner had specifically admitted that the subject premises are situate on survey number 22 Village Paspoli. The petitioner has further admitted that award has been passed in favour of I.I.T. The Bombay City Civil Court after taking into consideration the documentary evidence placed on record which was found to be cogent and reliable coupled with the admissions given by the petitioner has held that the subject premises are situate on survey no. 22, now part of C.T.S. No. 67, and were acquired by the Government for I.I.T. In absence of any other material available before the Bombay City Civil Court in order to demonstrate otherwise, we are of skc 6 WP-6746-11 the view that the findings recorded by the Bombay City Civil Court are just, proper, based on evidence and require no interference. Writ petition is dismissed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage has made a request that the Order may be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks. Since the Order of the Bombay City Civil Court is based on the evidence on record which have been considered by us and dismissed the writ petition by confirming the order of the Bombay City Civil Court, there is no case made out on this count. Request rejected. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)