Municipalities: Auction of residential quarters of Nagar Palika– Appellants claimed to be one of the participants in the auction proceedings and was also highest bidder – Claim of appellant that he occupied quarter no.6 and started living therein since June 1990 – Appellant complained that in 2001, Nagar Palika instead of executing sale deed in his favour in relation to quarter no.6 passed a resolution to sell quarter no.6 along with other quarters in public auction – Application by appellant under s.35 of Municipalities Act praying for direction to Nagar Palika to execute sale deed in his favour in relation to quarter no.6 – Commissioner directed Nagar Palika to execute sale deed in favour of appellant – State allowed the appeal filed by Nagar Palika – Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition before High Court – High Court dismissed writ petition – On appeal, held: There was no allotment letter issued by Nagar Palika in relation to quarter No.6 in favour of appellant in the so-called auction proceedings held in 1990 – Appellant failed to show that he actually paid any amount to the Nagar Palika towards the sale/auction price for quarter no.6 – Moreover, there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the Nagar Palika which could justify appellant’s entry in quarter no.6 as being legal – Therefore, the possession of the appellant since inception, i.e., since June 1990 in quarter No.6 was unauthorized and was that of a trespasser – Appellant is directed to vacate quarter no.6 within 3 months and pay Rs.3000/- per month to the Nagar Palika by way of damages for the use and occupation of quarter No. 6 from June 1990.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The possession of the appellant since inception, i.e., since June 1990 in quarter No.6 was unauthorized and was that of a trespasser. There was no allotment letter issued by Nagar Palika in relation to quarter No.6 to the appellant in the so-called auction proceedings held in 1990. The appellant also failed to file any such allotment letter nor could file any acceptance letter of Nagar Palika indicating acceptance of his so-called highest bid. The appellant also failed to show as to how much amount he actually paid to the Nagar Palika towards the sale/auction price for quarter No. 6 and, if so, when. In the absence of any document of title or/and legal document executed by the Nagar Palika in appellant’s favour in relation to quarter No.6 before the appellant entering in quarter No.6 in June 1990, the appellant’s possession cannot be held legal. [Paras 11, 12][983-A-D]
2. It is a settled principle of law that in order to prove that the possession of any person in any immovable property is legal, it is necessary for such person to prove prima facie that he is either the owner of such property or is in possession as a lawful tenant or is in its permissive possession with the express consent of its true owner. Such was not the case here. The appellant was in possession of quarter No.6 as a trespasser since June 1990 and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted from the said quarter by the Nagar Palika. Not only that the appellant has also rendered himself liable to pay damages for wrongful use and occupation of quarter No.6 since June 1990 to the Nagar Palika till he vacates the quarter No.6. [Paras 13, 14, 16][983-D-H]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.