Rattan Lal vs Uoi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3523 Del

18
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +       W.P.(C)No.550/2009

                                      Date of Decision : 29th July, 2010
%

       RATTAN LAL                    ..... Petitioner
                          Through : Mr. V. Venkatraman, Adv.

                     versus

       UOI & ORS.                   ..... Respondents
                          Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                   NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                          NO
        reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner assails order dated 23rd September, 2008

issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police purporting to

be the calculation of damages imposed upon the petitioner for

unauthorized use and occupation of the public premises being

in the nature of a Government family quarter bearing No.29,

Block-8, Type-II, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi between the period 1 st

June, 1993 till 8th April, 2008 for a sum of Rs.7,89,475/-. The

challenge by the petitioner is premised on a basic contention

that the calculations have been effected in violation of the

specific orders dated 3rd September, 2008 passed in

WP(C)No.1114/1996 which had been earlier filed by the

petitioner.

2. The dispute is in a narrow compass. It is not disputed

that the petitioner who is an employee of Central Reserve

Police Force („CRPF‟ hereafter) was posted at Group Centre,

Delhi on 2nd February, 1986 and was allotted the said quarter

on 21st October, 1987. The petitioner came to be transferred

out of Delhi on 13th September, 1990 whereupon he was

permitted extension of retention of the said quarter which

continued up to 31st May, 1993.

3. On account of the petitioner‟s failure to vacate the

premises, the respondents issued the notice dated 23rd August,

1993 calling upon him to vacate the premises. Upon his failure

to vacate the premises, the respondents treated him as if he

was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises and

imposed damages for continued use and occupation.

4. In this background, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ

petition in this court being WP(C)No.1114/1996 praying for

quashing of the order whereby he was directed to vacate the

said quarter as well as imposition of damages and the recovery

for the continued unauthorized use and occupation of the said

quarter. The petitioner in this case had placed reliance on an

order dated 14th August, 2008 passed in respect of a person

who was similarly situated as the petitioner.

5. The facts leading to the present proceedings before us

may be summed up as follows:-

(i) The petitioner was originally allotted the public

premises and came into possession lawfully. The

respondents had also granted extension of

continued occupation by the petitioner on three

occasions.

(ii) The petitioner assailed the order declaring him an

unauthorized occupant as well as imposition of

recovery of damages, by way of

WP(C)No.1114/1996, and an interim order dated

18th March, 1996 was passed in his favour directing

stay of eviction and recovery till the next date of

hearing. This interim order was continued till final

disposal of the writ petition on 3rd September, 2008.

(iii) At no point of time was any effort made by the

respondents to seek vacation of the interim order or

modification of violation thereof.

(iv) The petitioner has claimed to have continued in

occupation of the premises under the shield and

protection of the interim order dated 18th March,

1996.

6. During the pendency of WP(C)No.1114/1996, the

petitioner came to be posted in and out of Delhi on several

occasions. The respondents have set out the following postings

details of the petitioner in their counter affidavit which are not

disputed:-

     Unit            From        To            Location
     67 Bn           29.9.90     13.10.94      Srinagar/Sikkim
     55Bn            24.10.94    4.7.2000      Abohar (Punjab) 1994

                                           Srinagar 1995 - 2.1997
                                          Lalbasha (Jaipur) 3.97 -
                                          7.2000
     88(M) Bn 5.7.2000 30.9.2004          Delhi
     55 Bn     5.10.2004 4.8.2005         Srinagar
     GC, Delhi 5.8.2005 30.9.2007         Delhi

7. So far as the period in question is concerned, the

petitioner was posted with 88 (M) Battalion of the CRPF at Delhi

between 5th July, 2000 and 30th September, 2004 and with the

Group Centre, Delhi between 5th August, 2005 and 30th

September, 2007. From the above, it would appear that for the

further remaining period, the petitioner continued to occupy

the said public premises even though he was not posted at

Delhi.

8. Our attention is drawn to the order passed by this Court

in a similar case titled Ram Kala Yadav widow of late Sh.

R.S. Yadav vs. Union of India and Others wherein Smt.

Ram Kala Yadav was similarly placed as the petitioner. While

disputing a challenge to the order declaring as a unauthorized

occupant and imposing damages against occupancy of

Government accommodation which have been allotted to her

husband, this Court had passed aforenoticed order dated 11th

September, 2008 holding as follows:-

"In our considered view, the material fact is that undisputedly the petitioner was entitled to a government accommodation from the CRPF whether from one pool or the other. The fact that on the posting of the petitioner to a different assignment though in the same area, the petitioner would have been entitled to an accommodation from a different pool should not result in damages being imposed on the petitioner and more so when the matter is now 14 years old.

The delay in disposal of the matter has been occasioned by the negligence on the part of the respondents in producing the relevant policy despite repeated directions of the Court when the matter was being taken up for final disposal at the contemporaneous period of time. The failure on the part of the respondents in not producing the relevant policy resulted in admission of the matter and the interim orders being confirmed."

9. After these observations, the court was of the view that

ends of justice would be met if no recovery is made from the

petitioner as she had occupied the pool accommodation during

the tenure of her services with the respondents. It was

observed that in as much as, if this accommodation had not

been allotted, some other pool accommodation would have

been allotted to her. The court also held that the petitioner

had not claimed house rent allowance during this period of

time.

10. So far as the instant case is also concerned, the

respondents have stated that on account of the petitioner‟s

occupation of the Government accommodation, no house rent

allowance has been advanced or paid to the petitioner.

11. Placing reliance on the orders passed in the

WP(C)No.1447/1996, the petitioner‟s earlier writ petition was

disposed of by an order dated 3rd September, 2008 directing as

follows:-

"We have moulded the relief appropriately in the other matter and it is agreed that the same course of action be followed in the present case in terms whereof though, on the one hand, the petitioner would be liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the quarter for the period when he was not entitled to keep the quarter,

simultaneously credit would be given to the petitioner for the HRA admissible to him for the same period. In case some net amount is still due from the petitioner, it will be adjusted against the retiral benefits of the petitioner which are said not to have been still paid."

12. The impugned order dated 23rd September, 2008 has

been issued by the respondents in purported compliance of the

order dated 3rd September, 2008 passed by this Court in the

petitioner‟s earlier writ petition. Mr. Venkatraman, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently urged that

the order raising a demand of Rs.7,89,475/- towards the

damages on the plea of unauthorized occupation of the allotted

premises by the petitioner is wholly unwarranted, arbitrary and

illegal. It is further contended that the respondents have

illegally failed to give benefit to the petitioner on the issues

which have been noted by this court in the judgment dated 11th

September, 2008 and the petitioner was entitled to the same

relief and benefit. On instructions from Mr. Rattan Lal who is

present in court, it is submitted by Mr. Venkatraman, learned

counsel for the petitioner that in case the respondents accept

the entitlement of the petitioner to occupy Government

premises for the period between 5th July, 2000 till 30th

September, 2004 and 5th August, 2005 till 30th September,

2007 when he remained posted at Delhi, the petitioner would

not press the writ petition in respect of the remaining claim.

13. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel on both sides. Just as in the case of Ram Kala Yadav,

it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was entitled to

allotment and occupation of public premises for the period he

remained in service. The question to be considered is as to

whether the occupation at Delhi could be considered as valid

occupancy even though the petitioner was admittedly posted

to the unit located outside Delhi. In as much as Mr.

Venkatraman, learned counsel for the petitioner is confining

the prayer before us to the period for which the petitioner

remained at Delhi, this question may not really detain us any

further. However, so far as the period when the petitioner

remained posted at Delhi is concerned there could be no

manner of dispute that the petitioner was entitled to allotment

of pool accommodation. It is of course not necessary that he

would have been allotted the very quarter which he had

continued to occupy but certainly it remains a fact that the

petitioner continued to be in Government service and that the

respondents may very well have considered petitioner‟s

request for allotment of a quarter favourably.

14. We have also noticed hereinabove that by an interim

order dated 18th March, 1996 passed in WP(C)No.1114/1996,

this Court had stayed eviction and recovery of damages by the

respondents. The respondents neither sought modification nor

vacation of the interim order and also did not serve any further

notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. The

respondents also did not make any application seeking

clarification of the charges which they could levy or recover

from the petitioner. In addition thereto the respondents have

adjusted their claim of recovery of charges for the continued

use and occupation by the petitioner against the amounts

which the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to as

house rent allowance. In this background, there is merit in the

petitioner‟s plea with regard to the period when he was posted

at Delhi. In taking this view, we are supported by the

observations of the Court in the judgment dated 11th

September, 2008 passed in Ram Kala Yadav's case (Supra)

as well.

15. The petitioner has superannuated on 30th September,

2007 and has handed over vacant possession of the quarter in

April, 2008.

16. In view of the above, we issue the following directions:-

(i) The respondents shall be entitled to claim damages

for unauthorized use and occupation of the subject

quarter only between the period 29th September,

1990 till 4th July, 2000 and 5th October, 2004 till 4th

August, 2005. For this period, the respondents

would be entitled to adjust the said damages

against the petitioner‟s entitlement and claim for

house rent allowance. The petitioner shall not be

entitled to payment of any house rent allowance in

view of his occupation of the Government

accommodation for the period between 5th July,

2000 to 30th September, 2004 and 5th August, 2005

till 30th September, 2007.

(ii) The respondents shall be entitled to levy and

recovery of normal licence fee for the subject

premises from the period 1st October, 2007 till 9th

April, 2008. The respondents shall be entitled to

adjust this amount as well against the arrears of

house rent allowance which is lying with the

respondents.

(iii) The computation in terms of the order passed today

shall be effected and communicated to the

petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

(iv) The arrears of the amounts which are due and

payable by the respondents to the petitioner after

effecting the above calculation and adjustment shall

be forwarded within a period of eight weeks from

today.

17. This writ petition is allowed to the aforenoticed facts.

18. DASTI to the parties.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J JULY 29, 2010 aj