Illegal possession is liable to be evicted along with damages - claimed to purchase in public auction - Section 35 of the Municipalities Act praying therein for a direction to the Nagar Palika for execution of the sale deed in his favour in relation to quarter No.6. - commissioner allowed his application and direct to execute a registered sale deed and also fixed rate of sale - writ to High court - High court dismissed the same - Apex court held that 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 - failed to file any such allotment letter nor could file any acceptance letter of Nagar Palika indicating acceptance of his so­called highest bid - failed to show as to how much amount he actually paid to the Nagar Palika towards the sale/auction price for quarter No. 6 - 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 - 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. - 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.- These documents are not the documents of title, nor do they prove appellants legal possession over quarter No.6 and nor do these documents in any way bind the Nagar Palika - damages were also ascertained from the concerned advocates and fixed at 3,000/- per month instead of remanding - ordert to evict the quarter with in 3 months and order to pay damages from1990 to till the eviction - failing which directed to approach the apex court for legal remedies.

Illegal possession is liable to be evicted along with damages - claimed to purchase in public auction - Section 35 of the Municipalities Act praying therein   for   a   direction   to   the   Nagar   Palika   for execution of the sale deed in his favour in relation to quarter No.6. - commissioner allowed his application and direct to execute a registered sale deed and also fixed rate of sale - writ to High court - High court dismissed the same - Apex court held that 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 - failed to file any such allotment letter nor could file any acceptance letter of Nagar Palika indicating acceptance of his so­called highest bid -  failed to show as to how much amount he actually paid to the Nagar Palika towards the sale/auction price for quarter No. 6 - 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 -   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. - 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.- These   documents   are   not   the documents   of   title,   nor  do  they   prove   appellants legal possession over quarter No.6 and nor do these documents in any way bind the Nagar Palika - damages were also ascertained from the concerned advocates and fixed at 3,000/- per month instead of remanding - ordert to evict the quarter with in 3 months and order to pay damages from1990 to till the eviction - failing which directed to approach the apex court for legal remedies.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.11761­11762  OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 25218­25219 of 2018)
Masroor Ahmad Khan            ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.   ….Respondent(s)   
J U D G M E N T
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
1
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital whereby the High
Court dismissed the special appeal and the Review
Application filed by the appellant herein.
3. In order to appreciate the short controversy
involved   in   these   appeals,   few   facts   need   to   be
mentioned hereinbelow.
4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the Nagar Palika
Parishad, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as “the
Nagar Palika”).  In 1990, the Nagar Palika issued an
advertisement to auction their residential quarter
Nos.6 and 7 situated at Waverly Compound (Gopala
Sadan)   Mallital,   Naintal.   So   far   as   this   case   is
concerned, it relates to quarter No. 6.
5. The appellant herein claimed to be one of the
participants in the auction proceedings and also the
highest   bidder.   The   appellant   claimed   that   he
occupied   quarter   No.6   and   started   living   therein
since June 1990. The appellant complained that in
2
the   year   2001   (18.07.2001),   the   Nagar   Palika
instead of executing the 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.
6. The appellant, therefore, filed an application
under Section 35 of the Municipalities Act praying
therein   for   a   direction   to   the   Nagar   Palika   for
execution of the sale deed in his favour in relation
to quarter No.6. 
7. By order dated 21.07.2006, the Commissioner,
Nainital passed an order directing Nagar Palika to
execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. He
also fixed the rate at which the sale deed was to be
executed followed by another order to that effect.
8. The   Nagar   Palika   felt   aggrieved   and   filed
application/appeal to the State (respondent No.1).
By order dated 12.03.2007, the State set aside the
3
order of the Commissioner dated 21.07.2006 which
gave   rise   to   filing   of   the   writ   petition   by   the
appellant   in   the   High   Court   at   Nainital.   By
impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ
petition and also the review application filed by the
appellant herein, giving rise to filing of the present
appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
9.   The   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration,   in   this   case   is   whether   the   High
Court was justified in dismissing the special appeal
filed by the appellant.
10. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in these appeals.
11. In our opinion, the possession of the appellant
since   inception,   i.e.,  since   June  1990  in   quarter
No.6   was   unauthorized   and   was   that   of   a
trespasser.  This we say for more than one reason. 
4
12. First, there was no allotment letter issued by
Nagar   Palika   in   relation   to   quarter   No.6   to   the
appellant in the so­called auction proceedings held
in 1990; Second, the appellant also failed to file any
such allotment letter nor could file any acceptance
letter of Nagar Palika indicating acceptance of his
so­called highest bid; Third, 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; Fourth, 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   and   lastly,   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
5
1990,   the appellant’s possession cannot be held
legal. 
13. 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 is not
the case here. 
14.   The appellant has not taken any such plea
and even if he claims to have taken, then also, in
our view, he has failed to prove such plea for want
of any evidence. 
15. We have also perused the documents filed by
the appellant in that behalf. Having perused, we are
of the view that these documents are of no help to
him to prove his ownership or/and possession in
6
quarter   No.6.   These   documents   are   not   the
documents   of   title,   nor  do  they   prove   appellants
legal possession over quarter No.6 and nor do these
documents in any way bind the Nagar Palika. 
16. It is for all these reasons, we are of the opinion
that 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(see page E) to the Nagar Palika till he vacates
the quarter No.6.
17. In order to decide the quantum of damages, we
do not consider proper to remand the case to the
competent   authority   under  The   Public   Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
7
18. We,   therefore,   enquired   from   the   lawyers
representing   the   parties   as   to   what   is   the
approximate area of quarter No. 6 and what would
be its monthly rent that it could fetch in the market
during the period in question.
19.  Having heard their views, we have formed an
opinion that the appellant should be made liable to
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 till he handovers its
vacant possession. The sum which we have fixed
balances   the   rights   and   equities   between   the
parties. 
20. The appellant is granted three months’ time to
vacate quarter No. 6 situated at Waverly Compound
(Gopala   Sadan)   from   the   date   of   this   order.   The
appellant is further directed to pay to the Nagar
Palika (respondent No.3 herein) the damages for use
8
and occupation of the quarter No.6 from June 1990
(the month when he occupied the quarter) till the
date he vacates the quarter in terms of this order
within three months. 
21. The   damages   be   calculated   at   the   rate   of
Rs.3000/­   per   month   from   June   1990   till   the
delivery of possession. 
22. In case the appellant fails to vacate the quarter
and fails to pay the damages, it would be construed
as non­compliance of this Court's order and in that
eventuality the Nagar Palika would be at liberty to
move   to   this   Court   against   the   appellant   for
appropriate order. 
24. The appeal stands accordingly finally disposed of.
     ………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
                                   …...……..................................J.
                       [INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018
9