Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Education ... vs Delhi Development Authority
1991 Latest Caselaw 769 Del

JUDGMENT

P.N. Nag, J.

(1) This petition is directed against the order dated 3.8.1989 passed by Shri S.N. Kapoor, Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby he has accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 16.1.1986 passed by Shri R.D. Goel, Estate Officer-V vide which the Estate Officer has assessed the damages and confirmed the demand of Rs, 76,564.88 for unauthorised occupation of the disputed land from 21.81975 to 31.3.1980. The learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the Estate Officer on the ground that there was virtually no evidence about the rate of damages before the Estate Officer and the damages have been assessed without any evidence. Therefore, in such circumstances, he remanded the case back to the Estate Officer for rehearing the matter afresh for the assessment of damages. However, he has further ordered that the appellant should pay 50% of the amount demanded after adjustment of the amount already paid.

(2) After hearing Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge has exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity by having ordered the appellant to pay 50% of the amount demanded after adjustment of the amount already paid. Once the order of the Estate Officer has been set aside by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that there is virtually no evidence about the rate of damages assessed by the Estate Officer and the case was remanded for re-hearing, the learned Additional District Judge could not have passed the order that the appellant shall pay 50% of the amount demanded after adjustment of the amount already paid. If the order of the Estate Officer is bad as the same was passed by him without any evidence, according to the learned A.D.J., the whole order of the Estate Officer has to be set aside in its entirety and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to direct the appellant to pay damages @ 50% of the amount demanded after adjustment of the amount already paid.

(3) The impugned order is, therefore, modified and set aside only to the extent that "the appellant shall pay 50% of the amount demanded after adjustment of the amount already paid". However, the Estate Officer will decide the matter afresh for the purpose of assessing the damages as ordered by the learned A.D.J. vide impugned order.

(4) The parties shall appear before the Estate Officer on the date already fixed by him and the Estate Officer will proceed in accordance with the law as directed by the learned A.D.J. It is made clear that the appellant shall not be required to pay 50% p.a. of the amount demanded after adjustment of the amount already paid.

(5) In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.