GOKUL RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a limit to which an encroacher of public land can extend his luck. It cannot be disputed that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff. It also is not in dispute that neither the Municipal Corporation, Shimla nor the Union of India (who claim to be the owner of the suit property), have allowed the plaintiff to occupy the suit premises. Thus what is the plaintiff's right to occupy the same, remains unproven on record. In the absence of any authorization or legal sanction, mere issuance of Teh Bazari receipts (Ex.AW -1/A, PW -2/A, Mark 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F'), by the Municipal Corporation of Shimla, who is not the owner of the property, would not confer any right, much less indefeasible, upon the plaintiff to occupy the premises in question.

(2.) Plaintiff -appellant Gokul Ram, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 7.5.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge -I, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.23 -S/13 of 2014, titled as Union of India v. Gukul Chand, whereby judgment and decree dated 30.4.2014, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.5, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.84 -1 of 2002, titled as Gokul Ram v. Union of India, stands reversed.

(3.) Who is the owner of the suit land is a question raised by the plaintiff. Significantly, he has not led any evidence to establish such fact. Official of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla (Shri Brij Lal ­ PW -2) has deposed that the land does not belong to the Corporation.