IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5995 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5995 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5995 OF 2008 Blanche Victor Bugree. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Senior Manager (Aerodrome) Airport Authority of India (NAD) and others. ... Respondents. Satish P. Nagvekar for the petitioner. Girish Kulkarni with Mayur Shetty and Swati Deshmukh i/b. M.V.Kini & Co. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 20th August 2008. DATED: 20th August 2008. DATED: 20th August 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard. . Perused petition. 2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30th July, 2008 passed in Misc.Appeal No.63 of 2006 by the Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in exercise of appellate power under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected by a reasoned order together with application for extension of interim relief. The respondent, i.e. the Airport Authority of India, initiated eviction proceedings against the present petitioner before respondent No.4- Estate Officer, Airport Authority of India being E.O. No.9/2002. 3. The petitioner has filed written statement opposing the said petition contending that the petitioner’s maternal grandfather was in exclusive use, occupation, cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the suit property admeasuring about 426 sq.mt. It is the case of the petitioner that his maternal grandfather died in the year 1950. Thereafter, petitioner’s mother started cultivating the suit property. Petitioner’s mother died in the year 1991. Thereafter, petitioner started cultivating the said suit property. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the suit property as a owner openly to the knowledge of the true owner. She claims that her possession has ripen into ownership by adverse possession since she is holding suit property adversely to the knowledge of the previous owner as also the respondents. 4. The petitioner claims to have filed civil suit in the City Civil Court, Mumbai in the year 1980. This suit was filed for relief of injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed in the year 1981. - 3 - Another suit filed in the year 1990 for the similar relief also came to be dismissed for want of prosecution in the year 1994. Thus, in suits petitioner failed to establish her title or ownership by adverse possession. 5. The Estate Officer, after hearing the parties to the proceeding, was pleased to hold that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the property and proceeded to pass the eviction order on 18th March, 2004 for the reasons recorded therein. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of eviction dated 18th March, 2004, the petitioner preferred appeal being Misc.Appeal No.63 of 2006 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 30th July, 2008. 7. Not being satisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The only contention vehemently canvassed is that the petitioner has become owner by adverse possession. The similar plea was reiterated before - 4 - the lower appellate Court, which was negatived by a reasoned order. 9. Having examined the impugned order and the reasons recorded therein, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Court below. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view sustainable on the basis of material available on record. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as stated hereinabove, strongly canvassed the plea of adverse possession and claimed to be the owner of the property in dispute. In order to appreciate the submission advanced leading to ownership by adverse possession, one has to turn to the written statement; wherein the said plea is raised in defence, which reads as under: "21. THAT the Respondent in possession of 2 pucca structures on C.T.S. No.939(Pt) since for the last about 60 years or so and claiming through her grandfather, mother and on account of their uninterrupted un-intervened and is in exclusive use, occupation, possession and enjoyment of an area admeasuring about more than 426 sq.mtrs. or thereabouts and as such have become the owners thereof by virtue of adverse possession. The Respondent submits that she has also addressed the requisite notice and contemplates to file the civil proceedings in the civil court of law for declaration of her title and by way of adverse possession." - 5 - 11. The pleading extracted hereinabove does not make out a case of adverse possession for want of proper pleadings. It is for the petitioner to clearly plead all facts and establish her adverse possession. As already recorded, the pleadings are deficient; the evidence is lacking and the plea of adverse possession is unsustainable. 12. Mere possession, for howsoever length of time, does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse possession. It is for the petitioner to show by proper pleadings and cogent and convincing evidence hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner [see Thakur Thakur Thakur Kishan Singh (dead) v. Arvind Kumar Kishan Singh (dead) v. Arvind Kumar Kishan Singh (dead) v. Arvind Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 73]. The lower appellate Court has gone into detail and found it as a fact that the possession of the petitioner was not adverse. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner, despite strenuous argument, could not demolish the finding of adverse possession recorded against the petitioner. Attempt was made to reappreciate the evidence led by the parties. I am afraid, such - 6 - exercise is not permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless appreciation of evidence is found to be perverse. No perversity could be shown or demonstrated by the petitioner. Further I do not find that the petitioner has suffered any injustice which is required to be remedied by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 14. The Court below has examined details of the pleadings, evidence and the law relating to the concept of adverse possession and has properly appreciated the same, and, rightly reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish plea of adverse possession. 15. It is needless to mention that mere mutation entry does not amount to ouster as held by the Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh v. Gujjar Singh Darshan Singh v. Gujjar Singh Darshan Singh v. Gujjar Singh, AIR 2002 SC 606. 16. This Court not being a court of appeal cannot substitute its own views unless the impugned order is found to be perverse or based on extraneous consideration. No such case is made out by the - 7 - petitioner as stated either during the course of hearing or through the pleadings in the petition. The petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed in limine. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for stay of eviction order so as to enable her to approach higher forum. In this connection, I have to emphasise that the person pleading adverse possession has no equity since she has tried to defeat the rights of the true owner. 18. In the result, petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Prayer for stay of eviction order also stands rejected. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)