MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has reinstated a ruling from a Borivli metropolitan magistrate indicating that a developer had possession of a plot exceeding 16 acres near the Dahisar checkpost as of April 22, 2017. On Tuesday, Justice Amit Borkar nullified a decision by the Dindoshi sessions court and directed the court receiver to return possession of the land to Romell Housing and its associate, Jude Romell, “strictly in accordance” with the magistrate’s directive.
Romell alleged police misconduct after purchasing the property in 2016 from its previous owners, having compensated Kamruddin Shaikh, who held possession of the land. Following the completion of legal formalities, Romell set up three portable cabins and enclosed the plot. After Shaikh’s death on January 23, 2017, his son Salim filed a trespass complaint, leading to the Dahisar police detaining Jude and others on April 22, 2017. The next day, law enforcement dismantled the cabins, removed the barricades, and transferred possession to Salim.
In February 2018, the High Court assigned the investigation to the CBI and instructed the police to file a report under CrPC Section 145 to the magistrate. Justice Borkar stated that the magistrate’s inquiry was aimed at determining who held possession of the land on April 22, 2017, and whether any party was forcibly evicted two months before that date. In December 2019, the magistrate concluded that Romell had established settled possession and ordered the court receiver to hand over the land. However, in August 2022, the sessions court dismissed the magistrate’s order, applying strict proof standards as if engaged in a civil trial, as pointed out by the High Court.
Justice Borkar concurred with senior advocate Girish Godbole, representing Romell, stating that the sessions court improperly discarded significant documents based on technicalities and expressed skepticism regarding the possession letter from December 2016. He emphasized that the nature of proceedings under Section 145 is “summary and preventive… aimed at ensuring peace and order, rather than determining title.” The High Court noted that the sessions court exceeded its authority, conducting a detailed re-evaluation of the evidence and substituting its findings for those of the magistrate.
Advocates Chaitanya Pendse and Rohan Sawant, representing the Shaikhs, argued that oral evidence did not suggest that possession was granted to Romell. Justice Borkar, however, stated that Romell provided a “consistent chain of possession supported by documents, payments, and physical acts of control,” which the respondents failed to establish. He added that the CBI investigation and any criminal proceedings would proceed unaffected. This ruling pertains solely to the issue of possession under Section 145 and does not influence or pre-judge the rights of any party in civil matters, he clarified.
