RIZWANA NIZAMUDDIN SHAIKH Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR ENCROACHMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Perused the records. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 22. 3. 2002 passed by the Additional Collector (Encroachment/demolition), Western Suburbs on the ground that the same is contrary to the materials on record and therefore liable to be set aside.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that since the respondents threatened to carry out demolition of the structure in question, the petitioner approached the City Civil Court and by order dated 15. 6. 1995 the said Court directed the respondents not to demolish the said structure without due process of law. Thereupon a notice under s. 53 of the Maharashtra Land revenue Code was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner along with her reply dated 30. 10. 1995 produced certain documents in support of her defence. After hearing the petitioner, the Tahsildar (Encroachment), Borivali, passed the order dated 31. 1. 1996 holding that the petitioner had encroached upon Government land by constructing a hut admeasuring 30 x22 sq. ft. in C. S. No. 263/7 at Malad, Charkop Naka, Taluka Borivali, mumbal Suburban District and therefore ordered the demolition of the said structure. The petitioner sought to challenge the said direction by way of writ Petition No. 3042 of 2001 and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29. 1. 2002 directed the Additional Collector (Encroachment) to consider the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner afresh, and pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, the petitioner made further submissions on 11. 2. 2002 to the Additional Collector (Encroachment) and after hearing the petitioner, the Additional Collector (Encroachment) passed the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been occupying the said structure since 1983 and her name was shown in the voters' list for Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 44. The petitioner has also sought to produce ration cards, election identity card, and birth certificates of the son and daughter of the petitioner. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, perusal of the said documents would disclose that the petitioner had been occupying the said structure even prior to the datum line i. e. 1. 1. 1995 and therefore the petitioner is entitled for protection in terms of the Government policy in relation to the said structure and the additional Collector having failed to appreciate the same, and having not analysed the documents in proper perspective, has clearly acted arbitrarily while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, on the other hand, has submitted that most of the documents produced on record relate to the period after 1. 1. 1995 and whatever documents relating to the period prior to 1. 1. 1995 were produced by the petitioner, the same disclose the place of residence of the petitioner to be different from the suit structure.