SHANKAR DAGADU BAKADE Vs. BAJIRAO BALAJI DARWATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHY Rule was issued in the petition at all. 1. Rule in this petition was issued not because the Court found any mistake in the final order passed by the lower Court, but because the point raised by the petitioners was one which was likely to give rise to confusion and the provisions of section 22 read with section 2 (e) (v) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, was likely to be mis-used or abused by the land trespassers having mischief in mind. In fact this position was made clear even while issuing notice to the respondent plaintiff. When the Rule came up for final hearing Mr. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, stated that there existed some binding judgment which had thrown light upon the interpretation of section 2 (e) (v) of the said act. Several adjournments have been taken for production of the said judgment. But no such judgment has been produced till this date. The result is that this Courts view expressed even at the time of the front of the Rule, viz. that the said section 2 (e) (v) has got to be construed Ejusdem Generis with the provisions contained in Clauses (i) to (iv) of said section 2 (e) has got to be adhered to. Once this legal position is appreciated, the entire objection raised by the petitioners, who are admittedly a bunch of rank trespassers on the land, vanished in the thin air. Facts briefly stated.

(2.) THE facts need to be stated just briefly :-

(3.) IN this petition Mr. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners gave up reliance on said sub-clause (ii) of Clause (e) of section 2. Instead, he placed strong reliance upon sub-clause (v) of said Clause (e) of section 2 of the Slums Act. For appreciation of his contention it is necessary to set out the operative part as well as the various clauses of said section 2 (e ). Section 2 (e) runs as follows :-Section 2 (e) :-Occupier" includes,-