As a legal proposition, Mr. Diwan may be right that if evidence of the witness goes unchallenged the court may accept it. But the question is of existence of structure and ownership, and, as discussed by me, earlier, these two aspects cannot be said to have been proved only on the basis of oral evidence of P.W. 2. The plaintiff has to prove that his structure existed prior to 1964. He has no documents of any nature whatsoever for showing the structure to be in existence prior to 1962 and therefore the trial court rightly refused to believe the evidence of P.W. 2 regarding these two aspects. {Para 20}
26. The sum and substance of this discussion is that the plaintiff has no documentary evidence at all to prove that the structure was in existence since prior to 1977 or was in existence on 1.1.1962. The oral evidence of the plaintiff and his witness Kurmi P.W.2, cannot and does not, lead the court to come to the conclusion that the structure was so in existence since 1962. The so-called cross-examination of Pednekar the witness of the Corporation is not an admission and it does not help the plaintiff in any way much less in proving the case of the plaintiff about the structure in existence since 1962. Scores of other documents filed by the plaintiff are not required to be considered because they are subsequent to 1972. Therefore, conclusion is that the trial court was fully justified in holding the crucial issue against the plaintiff. Its finding about the failure of the plaintiff to prove the existence of the structure prior to 1977 or from 1962 are based on facts, sound reasoning and logic, and are not liable to be interfered with on any counts.
Then in paragraph 12 the Gauhati High Court held that "The power under Section 337 of the Act cannot be utilised and/or used in respect of a building constructed on the own land of a person after completion of the same and after assessed by the Municipal Authority, and this power should be utilised within a reasonable time, though no time limit has been prescribed in section itself."
31. Though this judgment of the Gauhati High Court is repeatedly and strenuously relied upon by Mr. Diwan in support of his submission, it cannot be of any help to the plaintiff for the simple reason that in the case before the Gauhati High Court the construction was made by the person upon his land. That is the distinguishing factor in that case and in the present case the plaintiff - appellant is not the owner of the land. Land upon which the suit structure is there, does not belong to him. The owner is before the court as defendant No.2, who has proved his ownership over the land and therefore if the structure is erected on somebody else's land then the judgment of Gauhati High Court cannot be made applicable. It would amount to giving protection to a trespasser, to legalise an illegal act and would be detrimental to the interest of the owner.
32. Notice under Section 351 was given to the plaintiff. He gave reply with supporting documents. All those were considered and then the order of demolition is passed. Before the trial court, no issue was framed by the court whether the principles of natural justice were not followed by the Authorities nor any such submission was made.
35. Mr. Diwan also contended that order of demolition is a drastic step and particularly if the structure is in existence since 1972 then ordering demolition in 2000, was not at all proper in the circumstances. According to him some other form of penalty could have been imposed and structure could have been regularised.
36. The factual aspect of this matter is that land upon which the structure stands does not belong to the plaintiff. Even BMC has no authority to regularise the structure on somebody else's property. If the property is of the BMC and there is illegal structure, the BMC may in a given case regularise the structure but where the property does not belong to the BMC and the land is owned by somebody else, then even the BMC can not regularise the structure. No other penalty can compensate the real owner. It is equally true that when the plaintiff came before the court his dominant intention was to prevent demolition of the structure pursuant to 351 notice and BMC was concerned with only one aspect i.e. whether the plaintiff has necessary documents to show that the construction which he was making in 2001 is with the permission and on the basis of a sanction plan. The BMC found that there was no sanction plan and second aspect of the matter was that the plaintiff failed to prove before BMC Authorities that his structure was in existence before the datum line.
37. At this juncture, it is necessary to consider one more aspect. According to the plaintiff the suit structure as it was there on the date of filing of the suit has been in existence since 1972. This contention is also false, and, in any event, it is not supported by the document. He tendered, the agreement between him and the vendor Lallu Bhika. Even the agreement of 1972 with Lallu Bhika mentions the suit property as Zopda i.e. hut only. In the assessment extract, this structure is mentioned as CI shed only and the first date of assessment is shown as 1.4.1979. But whereas the photographs tendered by the BMC after part of the structure was demolished, pending appeal, for road widening clearly shows that all the bricks used are absolutely new. This clearly fortifies the case of the BMC that in 2001 the plaintiff constructed four rooms. Obviously this is done by the plaintiff after demolishing the old hut. New structure of the plaintiff, cannot be called as Zopda or hut as is referred in the document of 1972. It cannot be referred as to C.I. shed as is referred in the assessment bill. It is a new construction for which plaintiff has no approved plans nor he has any permission of the BMC for construction.
38. Counsel for the BMC and defendant No.2 submitted that even if all the documents of the plaintiff are accepted, they do not firstly prove that the structure was in existence prior to datum line, that these documents do not prove that the new structure erected by the plaintiff was with the permission of the BMC or on the basis of any approved plan. My attention was drawn to the order of the Commissioner, which is a detailed order, wherein each document of the plaintiff is considered by the Commissioner. In any case, what ultimately comes before the court is important and therefore when plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his title over the property and failed to prove existence of the structure prior to 1972, has failed to prove that when he re-erected the structure in 2001, it was done by him with the permission of the BMC on the basis of sanction and approved plans, then the trial court was fully justified in dismissing the suit and rejecting the claim and contention of the plaintiff.
39. Mr. Diwan also contended that there was no rationale behind fixing the datum line and no action was taken by the BMC from 1972 to 2001. Limitation, in my opinion, in view of the provisions of the BMC Act does not apply in this case. No doubt demolition is a drastic action, but looking to the tendency of the citizens of making illegal construction in the City of Mumbai, which are hundreds and thousands in numbers, BMC is required to be empowered with such drastic action and whether there is a rationale behind fixing the datum line, the court cannot go into this question, because this is a question of policy.
40. It is to be noted that Mr. Diwan had cited some authorities about the testimony of single witness and use of unregistered document for collateral purpose. There is no dispute about this proposition. But in the facts of the case neither the evidence of the single witness can be taken as a proof of the existence of the structure prior to 1972 even if the evidence of witness had gone unchallenged. I have already discussed and noted that illegality and validity of structure are required to be proved on the basis of documentary evidence otherwise that will create chaotic situation where everybody will examine numerable witnesses for proving these facts. There cannot be any substitute for written permission of the BMC for construction nor there cannot be any substitute for approved plan before construction. Therefore, for all these reasons, there is no merit in this Appeal.
First Appeal No.1241 of 2005
16th September, 2005
Citation: 2005(4) ALL MR 689,2006(1) MHLJ 194
Print Page
