BHIKHABHAI D BORAD Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS .Sangita Pahwa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.C. Kodekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6. None for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 though served.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, apprehending his dispossession under the hands of the Collector and other authorities, is before this Court with a submission that the petitioner had taken the property in dispute, on lease from the Municipality and except in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed either by the State Government in encroachment removal drive, or, road widening drive, or, by the Municipality without terminating the tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner has made a statement in the writ application that the property was leased out to him. Unfortunately, in support of the said tall claim, neither resolution passed by the Municipality nor letter of allotment nor lease deed have been filed. It is not even the case of the petitioner that he applied for such documents and the Municipality did not supply the said documents. Oral statement of a fact may taken to be correct if a prima facie finding is to be recorded, but, for recording a final finding, a party would always be obliged to produce the document on which they place their reliance.

(3.) UNFORTUNATELY , in absence of a resolution, or, an order of allotment, a lease cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. If a legal action is to be taken, then, it has to be taken in legal manner only and not otherwise.