In Brief
The appellant claimed to have purchased a municipal residential quarter through a 1990 auction and occupied it since June 1990, but the municipality never executed a sale deed in his favour and later passed a resolution to re-auction the property. The High Court dismissed his writ petition. The Supreme Court affirmed this dismissal, holding that the appellant's possession was unauthorized and constituted trespass because he lacked any allotment letter, acceptance letter, proof of payment, or express consent from the municipality. The Court ordered the appellant to vacate within three months and pay damages at Rs. 3,000 per month from June 1990 until vacation."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.