The Bombay High Court, on Tuesday, set aside an order of the Dindoshi Sessions Court and restored a Metropolitan Magistrate’s[1] ruling which had recognized Romell Housing LLP (“Applicant”) as being in possession of 17 acres of disputed land at Dahisar, Mumbai.
Justice Amit Borkar observed that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2] are preventive and summary in nature, confined to identifying actual possession to avoid breach of peace, and not meant to adjudicate ownership or title.
The disputed land at Dahisar (about 17 acres) was originally occupied partly by Viking Motors (through Manpreet Bajaj) and largely by late K.N. Shaikh. In 2016, Bajaj through surrender and Shaikh through assignment-cum-surrender, agreed to give up possession of the land to the Valentine Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Pooja Land and Premises Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, in March 2017, the landowners executed registered sale deeds in favour of Romell Housing LLP, and a formal possession letter. After these transactions, Romell took control by fencing the land, placing cabins, engaging security guards, and paying taxes and dues.
Dispute arose when, in April 2017, Sameer Shaikh (“respondent”) lodged an FIR alleging forcible dispossession, criminal intimidation and dacoity, following which police removed the applicants from the property.
In December 2019, the Magistrate ruled in favour of Applicant, directing the Court Receiver to restore possession. This order was overturned in August 2022 by the Sessions Court, which questioned the admissibility of certain possession documents.
The High Court, however, found that the Sessions Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by applying strict evidentiary rules and reappreciating facts. It emphasised that possession can be established by overt acts such as fencing, security arrangements, and payment of dues, and that technical objections like want of registration cannot override the preventive scope of Section 145 CrPC.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of Sessions Court, and directed the Court Receiver to hand over possession of the land to the applicants with police assistance, if necessary.
Appearances
Applicant- Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Drupad Patil i/by Mr. Dheeraj D. Patil
Respondents- Mr. Chaitanya Pendse with Mr. Atharva S. Jagtap for respondent No.1.
Mrs. Rajashree V. Newton, for respondent No.2-State.
Mr. Rohan Sawant i/by Mr. Laxman Jain for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Mr. Dinesh Purandare, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vinodini Srinivasan, Mr. Parag Shah, and Ms. Shraddha Prajapati for the interveners in IA/4719/2024.
[1] Judicial Magistrates First Class under Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
[2] Replaced by Section 164 of BNSS
