Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KANTA PRASAD D. PATEL versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.

Decided
15 April 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 322 · 1996 INSC 522
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 322, margin E

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 arc that the appellant clain1ed to have purchased the disputed site from one AM. 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, 1962. 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 admcasuring 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.

pp. 322–323, margin F

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 be established as a fact that the appellant has title to the property and construction was made bona fide in compliance of lawful permission or pri,or 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 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.

p. 323, margin B

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 323, margin E