Gian Singh vs Delhi Jal Board & Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 824 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 10703/2006
                                Date of decision: 11th February, 2010.


      GIAN SINGH                         ..... Petitioner
                         Through      Mr. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal,
                                      Adv.

                    versus

      DELHI JAL BOARD & ANR                  ..... Respondent
                       Through        Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate
                                      for Delhi Jal Board.
                                      Mr.Vikram Saini, Adv. for R-2.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                             ORDER

1. Counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. Firstly, it

is submitted that the Delhi Jal Board is not the owner of land, which

was in occupation of the petitioner as the same does not fall in

Khasra No. 354/8, village Azadpur, but was part of private land in

Khasra Nos. 39 and 42. Secondly, it is submitted that the orders

WPC No.10703/2006 Page 1 passed by the Estate Officer under Section 7 of the Public Premises

(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 with effect from

15.2.1974 to 30.3.1981, 01.04.1981 to 30.04.1985, 1.5.1985 to

31.10.1988, 1.11.1988 to 31.12.1991, 01.01.1992 to 31.12.1994,

01.01.1995 to 31.01.1998 amounting to Rs.10,773/-, Rs. 6,174/-, Rs.

5,292/-, Rs. 4,914/-, Rs. 4,536/- and Rs. 4,662/- are without any

reasoning. It is submitted that the said orders do not disclose why

and on what basis damages have been assessed at 0.60 paisa per

square yard.

2. The first contention was raised and examined in the eviction

order passed against the petitioner under Section 4 and 5 of the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

Counsel for the petitioner admits that he did not challenge and

question the eviction order. Thus, the petitioner accepted the

findings recorded by the Estate Officer in the eviction order. It is

noticed that some other persons in the same locality had questioned

and challenged the eviction order under Section 9 before the first

WPC No.10703/2006 Page 2 appellate authority and before this Court by way of W.P.(C) Nos.

12669/2006, 12671/2006, 14188/2006 and 14256/2006. The Court

dismissed the said writ petitions by order dated 11th January, 2007.

The Court did not find any merit in the contention raised and plea of

adverse possession was rejected. Counsel for the petitioner is unable

to point out why the petitioner's case is different and should be

treated distinctly.

3. The second contention with regard to damages @ 0.60 per

square yard was not raised before the first appellate authority. The

questions raised before the first appellate authority were whether

the petitioner was in occupation of Khasra No. 354 or Khasra Nos. 39

and 42, village Azadpur and whether the petitioner was the absolute

owner of the said land by adverse possession. The petitioner had not

challenged the quantum or rate of damages. It is apparent that the

petitioner was satisfied with the quantum and rate of damages

awarded by the Estate Officer. As noticed above, the quantum and

rate of damages awarded @ 0.60 per sq.yds. The rate of damages

WPC No.10703/2006 Page 3 awarded is nominal.

In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present

writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      FEBRUARY 11, 2010
      NA/P




WPC No.10703/2006                                               Page 4