1 wp10381-09.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10381 OF 2009 Anant D. Gaikar ..Petitioner versus Kalyan Municipal Council, Now Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation & Ors ..Respondents Mrs.Anjali Helekar for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Rao for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 22nd July 2011. P.C.: . Heard Mrs.Helekar appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Rao appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2 After carefully perusing the concurrent orders with the assistance of Mrs.Helekar, I am of the opinion that the same do not require any interference under Article 227 of the 2 wp10381-09.doc Constitution of India. 3 Firstly, the petitioner was unable to prove the case of tenancy. The petitioner was unable to produce anything so as to indicate that there was a lease created in his favour by the so called landlord. Secondly, the record indicates that the petitioner was inducted for a temporary period by the predecessor in title of the respondent and no rights were created in his favour. Thirdly, the authorities have concurrently found that this is an attempt to usurp public property in the garb of applying Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 when it is plainly not applicable. The land belongs to the Corporation and it is a public property. By virtue of the provisions of the said enactment, it is out of purview of the Tenancy Act. 4 It is in such circumstances that all authorities have rightly held that technicalities shall not defeat the course of justice. Merely because the application has been filed belatedly 3 wp10381-09.doc by the respondent-Corporation, it cannot be thrown out on the grounds that it is time barred. Apart from the said pleas having been duly considered, it has been held that in larger public interest, property of the Corporation cannot be allowed to be taken away in the garb of invoking the Tenancy Act. For all these reasons, this is not a fit case for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. 5 At this stage, it is prayed that there is an ad-interim order of this Court dated 25th November 2010. It is prayed that same be continued so as to enable the petitioner to challenge this order in the higher Court. 6 Finding that an attempt was to usurp the public property on the ground of litigation, that this attempt should be foiled, this is not a case to continue interim relief as prayed. Prayer is rejected. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)