Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Display - PDF - 2023-04-30T213037.114
Display - PDF - 2023-04-30T213037.114
S No.211/2019
Anees Vs. Collector
Below Exhibit No.48
6. Contents of the affidavit are true and correct. I have signed
the same. Now I am shown verified copy of the License agreement
dated 17 July 1972 and 05 August 1974. The learned counsel for
plaintiff has objected for giving exhibit to the said documents on the
ground that as defendant is not party to the said document nor any
signature has been made by him. The learned counsel for defendant has
stated that licensee has made signature on it and hence, it may be
exhibited. In view of the same as the applicant i.e. the present witness
has singed the same document along with witnesses and licensor.
Hence, it is marked as Exh.51 and 52. Now I am shown the verified
copy of receipt of payment of tax. It is marked as Exh.53, 54, 55 and
56. Now I am shown the verified copy of Electricity Meter. It is marked
as Exh.57. Now I am shown verified copies of three tax invoices. It is
marked as Exh.58, 59 and 60. Now I am shown the verified copy of
building permit granted by NMC. It is marked as Exh.61. Now I am
shown the verified copy of letter send by me dated 26.11.2013. It is
marked as Exh.62. Now I am shown the xerox copy of letter received by
me dated 10.09.2013. It is marked as Article 'A'. Now I am shown the
order passed by Government of Maharashtra and communicate to me
by letter dated 26.11.2013. It is marked as Article 'B'. Now I am shown
the xerox copy of letter send by Commissioner to Secretary dated
28.06.2004. It is marked as Article 'C'.
CrossExamination by Adv. Shri. R.R. Bagade for plaintiff.
7. It is true that on the northern side of my house there is
vacant plot of plaintiff which was purchased by him in the year 1989.
..6.. Reg.C.S No.211/2019
Anees Vs. Collector
Below Exhibit No.48
The said property was originally owned by person by name Malik boja.
It is admeasuring 2688 Sq.Ft. In the back side of my house there is
Government Land. It is true that the said Government land is having
plot No.21 and 22. Said area of the plot is 1416 Sq.Ft. From the eastern
side of my house there is a gate. It is true that on the northern side
there is compound wall of plaintiff. It is true that there is no other way
for approaching the plaintiffs plot besides the said gate. I am doing the
work of ironing the clothes. My family consist of my wife, my two sons
and one daughter. All my children are married. It is true that
encroachment squad had been to demolished my house in the year
2002. I cannot recollect whether I have given bond seeking some time
for demolishing the house as there was marriage of my daughter. Now I
am shown the xerox copy of bond given by me before the encroachment
squad in the year 2002. I identify my signature on it. Hence, it is
marked as Exh.65. In the said bond I have written that I undertake to
personally remove the encroachment on the land else will pay fine of
Rs.10,000/ to the Hon'ble Authority. It is true that my house is in the
same position till today. It is true that I have not paid amount of
Rs.10,000/ towards fine as agreed. It is true that NIT or NMC has not
executed any lease in my favour till today. It is not true to say that I am
residing on the same premises illegally. It is true that Exh.51 and 52 are
only for temporary use of the land. It is true that Exh.51 and 52 was
given for limited purpose of one year. The witness volunteers that it was
given by NMC and I have agreed to give it back to Nazul department. It
is true that since 1972 I have not renewed the license agreement. It is
true that I have not executed any agreement with the Nazul authorities.
It is true that as per the Tax receipts I am the possessor not the owner.
NMC has not given any notices to me. It is true that Nazul department
..7.. Reg.C.S No.211/2019
Anees Vs. Collector
Below Exhibit No.48
officers had been to the spot and has carried out the measurement of
area which is possessed by me and also the area which is in possession
of the plaintiff. It is true that I have given letters to Nazul department
that I have made encroachment and it may be given to me. I do not
know my house is admeasuring 16.88 Sq.Mtr. and my house consist of
three rooms. In the said rooms I am having my shop. It is true that the
said property was given to me for residential purpose. Still I am doing
the business of ironing in the said premises.
Matter adjourned due to recess.
Nagpur (Pankaj P. Naigaonkar)
Date : 11/04/2023. 11th Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn.,
Nagpur.
Matter resume after recess.
Cross examination by counsel for plaintiff Shri. R.R. Bagade on fresh oath.
8. I am stated in my evidence affidavit that I am the owner of suit property
I am not filed any documents besides the present documents to show that I am the
owner of the suit property. Behind my house from the northern side there was office of
plaintiff. It is not true to say that after demolition the said office the said premises was
allotted to plaintiff. It is true that at this movement the said plot is a vacant plot. It is
true that from the eastern side of the plot of plaintiff there is Ranu School. On the
western side of plaintiffs plot there is a house of Dr. Shri. Qureshi. On the road side
there is a house of Shri. Foujdar. It is not true to say that due my hut there is
disturbance to the access house of plaintiff. It is not true to say that as per my demand
there is no land on the spot. I have not filed any proceedings against the order of
demolition of my house in appellate court. It is not true to say that since 1975 I am
residing on the premises illegally. It is not true to say that my hut is on footpath. As per
..8.. Reg.C.S No.211/2019
Anees Vs. Collector
Below Exhibit No.48
Exh.61 I was allotted the possession of the said premises for lease period only. I have
renovated my hut by means of bricks and tin. I have taken permission for the same. It is
true that I have not filed any documents with regard to permission granted by NMC for
renovating the hut. It is not true to say that I am illegally residing on the said premises
without any authority. It is not true to say that the concern authority has from time to
time given orders of vacating the premises still I have not vacated it. It is not true to say
that the authorities have not executed any lease in my favour. I have not renewed my
license from 1974. It is not true to say that I have not filed appeal in Mantralaya nor my
file was burned. It is not true to say that I have falsely communicated the Office of
Mantralaya in order to create false evidence. I can not tell as to how much property is
in my possession. It is not true to say that there is no land in existence which is
belonging to Nazul. It is not true to say that I am deposing falsely and I have filed false
affidavitinchief.
Reexamination is Nil.
R.O.A.C. Before me
Nagpur (Pankaj P. Naigaonkar)
Date : 11/04/2023. 11th Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn.,
Nagpur.
C E R T I F I C A T E
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file of evidence are
word to word, as per original evidence.
Name of Stenographer : A.P. Dharmik
(Stenographer GradeIII)