1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3747 OF 2010. Manohar Janardhan Bhadade : VERSUS :- Smt. Madhuri Ramesh Walokar and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2010. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, with Shri P. Shende, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri M.S. Sharma, learned Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3. In earlier Writ Petition No. 1527/2010 this Court remanded the matter back on 30.06.2010 to enable the petitioner to show that the premises are covered within 4 boundaries mentioned in the notification of Slum Area. The remand was made after noticing that it was so covered at least in 3 directions. Inspite of that liberty, the petitioner has not succeeded in bringing on record the 4th boundary. Today while assailing the impugned order passed after remand, the 4th boundary as to be Pachpaoli Road which connects Ruikar Road to Central Avenue Road, is being pointed out from map and an argument that said 2 boundary needs to be inferred is being advanced. When parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in trial, it is apparent that thee is no question of drawing any inference. This effort itself shows absence of positive evidence on record. Shri Khapre, learned counsel has contended that the competent officer of Slum Authority has deposed that the suit house is situated in Slum Area and his evidence has not been shaken in cross examination. He further argues that as the certificate issued by that Authority is in discharge of official duties, it must be presumed to be correct. He is relying upon the judgment reported at AIR 1993 SC 2592 (Smt. Naseem Bano .vrs. State of U.P. And others.) for the said purpose. Perusal of the map or inspection note given by the said Authority again does not show the 4th boundary. The respondent has not accepted the contention that the suit house falls within the Slum Area. The Appellate Court has after remand considered the material again and I, do not find any perversity in the said findings. There is no jurisdictional error. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.