MCD Vs. HAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, petitioner has lost before both the Forums on account of failure to controvert the respondent's stand that they had never carried out any unauthorised construction in Pit No. 6, Plot No. 289, Bagh Kare Khan, Delhi (hence forth referred to as the 'subject site).

(2.) The findings returned by the Estate Officer in the order of 20 th September, 2004 (Annexure P-4), are that respondents' are not in unauthorised occupation of the subject property and they had carried out necessary repairs just to maintain the subject site. Order (Annexure P-4) solely relies upon the deposition of the two witnesses of the respondents (which had remained unchallenged) and Patwari's Report of 27 th February, 2007 to the effect that there was no superstructure on the second floor of the subject site. It stands noted in the Order (Annexure P-4) that the petitioner herein had not placed on record requisite documents despite sufficient opportunities given.

(3.) Aforesaid findings returned in the order (Annexure P-4) have been affirmed in appeal vide order of 31 st May, 2010 (Annexure P-6). Since the impugned order (Annexure P-6) succinctly culls out the factual matrix of this case, therefore, the same is not being reproduced herein, for the reason that fervent plea made by petitioner's counsel at the hearing, is to permit the petitioner to lead the evidence afresh as due to connivance of the respondents with the officials of the petitioner, the available evidence clearly depicting unauthorised construction in the subject site, was not produced before the Estate Officer. This is of course controverted by learned counsel for the respondents who urges that the Patwari's Report of 27 th February, 2007 relied upon by the authorities below clearly show that there was no unauthorised construction and so, this petition is without substance and merits rejection.