http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KANTAPRASAD D. PATEL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATERBOMBAY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   370        1996 SCALE  (4)196

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Division  Bench of  the High  Court of  Bombay in Appeal No.565/92 made on march 3, 1995. The admitted facts are that the appellant  claimed to  have purchased  the disputed site from one  A.M. Patil  in 1965 and constructed sheds thereon. He also alleged to have had a lease from him. On that basis, he claimed that the structure was existing prior to April 1, 1992. The  respondents issued  notice to  the appellant  for demolition. The  Deputy Municipal  Commissioner initially by order dated  January 27,  1983 directed him to retain a shed admeasuring 30"  x 30" but other structures were directed to be demolished.  After 5  years, notice  was  issued  to  the appellant  to  demolish  that  shed.  Calling  the  same  in question, the  appellant filed  the writ  petition. In  Writ Petition No.1375/88,  the learned single Judge had held that the exercise of the power of review should be made bona fide within a  reasonable time. After considerable lapse of time, power of  review cannot be exercised. The Division Bench has set aside  the order  holding that  there is  no evidence on record to  show that the appellant had constructed the above structure prior to April 1, 1962. Under those circumstances, the appellant could not be permitted to retain the structure which was illegally constructed.,      It is sought to be contended for the appellant that the Additional Commissioner  has no  power to  review the  order passed by  a subordinate  officer on January 27, 1983 in the impugned order and, therefore, it is one of nullity. We find no force in the contention. It must he established as a fact that  the   appellant  has   title  to   the  property   and construction was  made bona  fide in  compliance  of  lawful permission or prior to April 1, 1962. It is an admitted fact that even  the lease  deed does  not contain  any recital as regards the  existence of  any  structure.  Learned  counsel

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

sought to  reply upon an order passed by the civil Court and also the  affidavit of  the lessor filed in 1966 to show the existence of the shed. It would be obvious that the shed was constructed after  April 1, 1962 as found by the High Court. Under  those   circumstances,  the   authority  was  rightly justified in  exercising that  power. We  do  not  find  any illegality in the order warranting interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.