MASROOR AHMAD KHAN versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 980 · Decided: 03-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Leave granted
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
980                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
MASROOR AHMAD KHAN
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11761-11762 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
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
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 980
980
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
981
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]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11761-
11762 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2018 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 25 of 2015 and dated
07.09.2018 in MCC No. 1193 of 2018.
K. K. Tyagi, Iftekhar Ahmad, Anoop Kumar and Sarvam Ritam
Khare, Advs. for the Appellant.
Manish Kumar, Piyush Kaushik and Ms. Divya Roy, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order
dated 28.08.2018 in Special Appeal No.25 of 2015 and order dated
07.09.2018 in Review Application MCC No.1193 of 2018 in Special
Appeal No.25 of 2015 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
MASROOR AHMAD KHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
982                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.