way-leave charges mentioned in cl.11 in advance. Thus, the payment of supervision & departmental charges is integrally connected with the grant of way-leave facility and stand on the same footing as the payment made by the Respondent under cl. 11. The Respondent having admitted its liability, paid the amount of Rs.1,64,834/-. But when it came to supervision and departmental charges payable under clause 18, the Respondent took a contradictory stand. As the Respondent failed to pay the amount, the Claimant paid Rs.1.32 Crores. The additional document (now marked as Ex-R.154) belatedly filed by the Respondent after the arguments were concluded, does not come to its aid. However, as the alleged settlement and finalization of account was pleaded in the course of Respondent's counsel's argument and the document is not in dispute, the Tribunal has taken it on record for the proper appreciation of the issue. Ex.R.154 is the letter of the Claimant dated 14.06.2016 seeking refund of Rs.7.91 lakhs out of the refund amount received from Railways. The refund was on a different account. However, along with the said letter, 'payment reconciliation sheet' was enclosed. In that „general & departmental charges‟ is the last item. In the remarks column, it is mentioned: „to be payable by IPRWL‟. According to the Respondent, it was a clear admission made as a result of settlement arrived at. That was not the case of the Respondent in the pleadings. From this single word, the admission of liability cannot be inferred. In any case, once it is held that the disputed amount partakes the character of way-leave charges demanded by Railways, the liability falls on the Respondent, irrespective of the expression 'payable' used in re-conciliation statement. No settlement can be inferred from the additional document filed by the Respondent.
