Dismissed

Union of India v. Ramji Dass Banarsi Dass Petroleum Sales & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2012CWP/15016/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an appellate authority's order. The appellate authority had significantly reduced the damages claimed for unauthorized occupation of public railway land, noting the reduction was legal and not perverse.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no merit found.

Union of India Vs Ramji Dass… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.15016 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No.15016 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision: 10.2.2012

Union of India

-----Petitioner

Vs.

M/s Ramji Dass Banarsi Dass Petroleum Sales, Pharwahi Bazar, Barnala

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶12

Present:Mr.Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶14

The petitioner – Union of India is aggrieved by the order dated 7.3.2006, Annexure P.12 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short, “the Act”).

¶15

Brief facts as narrated in the writ petition may be noticed. On 11.10.2000, the Union of India filed an application, Annexure P.1 before the Estate Officer, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Ambala Cantt under sections 4 and 7 of the Act for eviction of respondent No.1 from the public premises measuring 1500 square meters of the railway land and also for claiming damages for

¶16

CWP No.15016 of 2011

¶17

¶18

unauthorized occupation thereof for the period from 1.4.2000 to 30.9.2000 at the rate of Rs.1,19,555/- per month. On 7.11.2000, the Estate Officer issued notice to respondent No.1 under sub-section (1) and clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. The application was contested by respondent No.1 by filing written statement. Replication to the written statement was also filed by the petitioner. The Estate Officer after hearing both the parties passed the order dated 27.7.2004, Annexure P.6 directing the respondent-firm to make payment of damages to the tune of Rs.62,16,660/- for the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.7.2004 at the rate of Rs.1,19,555/- per month. Aggrieved by the order, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the District Judge under Section 9 of the Act. Vide order dated 7.3.2006, Annexure P.12, the amount was reduced to Rs.1,09,345/- by the appellate authority. Hence this petition by the petitioner – Union of India.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the damages amounting to Rs.7,17,332/- as calculated as per Annexure P.14 had been rightly claimed from respondent No.1 for remaining in unauthorized occupation of the Public Premises. However, the same had been reduced by the appellate authority to Rs.1,09,345/-. Learned counsel submitted that the appellate authority was in error in passing the order reducing the quantum of damages which was passed under section 7(2) of the Act.

¶20

After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶21

CWP No.15016 of 2011

¶22

¶23

The appellate authority while reducing the quantum of

¶24

damages had recorded as under:-

¶25

“12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the damages are assessed at double of the licence fee. The licence fee was Rs.11,510/- per annum, when the licence was terminated and thus the amount of damages comes to Rs.23,020/- per year. Therefore the Railways are entitled to recover damages from the appellant for unauthorised use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs.23,020/- per year for the period from 1.4.2000 till vacation of the said premises. The Railways are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said amount of damages from its due date till realization. Thus the Railways are entitled to recover the damages from the appellant on account of unauthorized use and occupation of demised premises, and interest thereon as follows:

¶26

Period of unauthorized use and occupation	Due date	Damages payable	Rate of interest and period
1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001	1.4.2000	23,020/-	10% p.a. from due date till realization
1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002	1.4.2001	23,020/-	-do-
1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003	1.4.2002	23,020/-	-do-
1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004	11.4.2003	23,020/-	-do-
1.4.2004 to	1.4.2004	17,265/-	-do-
December 2004
(When premises were vacated)
		1,09,345/-

¶27

Accordingly, the part of the impugned order passed under Section 7(2) of the Act, awarding damages of Rs.62,16,860/- is modified and the railways are held entitled to claim damages of Rs.1,09,345/- for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises,

¶28

CWP No.15016 of 2011

¶29

¶30

alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when it becomes due as detailed above in para 12 of judgment.

¶31

In the result, the appeal is accepted partly with costs and the impugned order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the Estate Officer, is modified to the extent that appellant is liable to pay Rs.1,09,345/- as damages on account of unauthorized use and occupation of public premises, to the Railways. The Railways will get interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the amount of damages from the date when it becomes due till realization.”

¶32

No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the aforesaid findings recorded by the appellate authority which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is

¶34

dismissed.

¶35

February 10, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge

Union of India v. Ramji Dass Banarsi Dass Petroleum Sales & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Ramji Dass Banarsi Dass Petroleum Sales & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sant Harcharan Dass and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Saluja Motors Vs Chief Administrator, Ut, Chandigarh and Ors.

Banarsi Dass Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ritu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajan Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.H.B.V.N. and Ors.