Delhi District Court
Union Of India vs M/S Batra Brothers on 18 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTHWEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
IN RE :
PPA Number : 5/16
Date of registration : 26052012
Reserved for Judgment on: 10082018
Judgment announced on : 18122018
Union of India
Through Assistant Commercial Manager (G)
State Entry Road,
Northern Railway, DRM Office,
New Delhi.
....... Appellant
Versus
M/s Batra Brothers
Through its General Manager,
E42, Okhla Industrial Area,
PhaseII, Delhi110020
..... Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of an appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 07022012 passed by PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 1/10 the Ld. Estate Officer, Northern Railway, DRM Office, New Delhi whereby the respondent was directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 91,45,167/ in full and final settlement of the claim arising out of claim for recovery of rent / damages of Rs. 4,55,32,554/.
2. In brief, it is submitted that the appellant gave a piece of land measuring 6987 Sq. meters to the respondent on license basis at Shakurbasti Railway Station for the purposes of construction and maintaining their depot for petroleum products, subject to Petroleum Act 1934 and rules framed thereunder.
3. The plot of land was licensed to the respondent as per the license agreement duly executed between the parties. The license in respect of land in question has already been cancelled as the respondent had failed to pay the revisions made in the license fee as per the rules and regulation of the department and as agreed by the respondent in the agreement. It was agreed between the parties that the revisions and license fee would be quinquennial, prospective and on the rational basis. The appellant claimed Rs. 7,89,00,637/ vide letter No. 114664/CP/SSB/707 dated 20011999 from the respondent.
4. The appellant had claimed as per the policy vide No. 2005/LML/18/3 dated 10022005 which came lateron from the Government of India, Ministry of Railway for the settlement of pending cases. The appellant filed an application before the Estate PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 2/10 Officer alleging that the respondent was licensed railway plot measuring 6987 square meters at Shakurbasti and the respondent had failed to deposit the license fee from 11111982 to 31031986 @ Rs. 60/ per Sq. meters plus 10% escalation. The license fee from 01041986 to 09081988 @ Rs. 360/ per Sq. meters. In view of the above the license of the respondent was terminated on 10051988 and after that the respondent became unauthorized occupant of the plot in question.
5. According to the appellant the Estate Officer without considering the facts and documents of the appellant passed the impugned order and asked the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 32,77,695/ in 3 equal installments towards full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of claim for recovery of rent/damages of Rs. 4,55,32,554/.
6. Against this background, the appellant has challenged the impugned order on various grounds interalia contending that : the Ld. Estate Officer has not considered the material and evidence on record and has ignored the policy of the railway board; that the Ld. estate officer has ignored and failed to consider the license agreement and its terms and conditions as mentioned in clause 17 of the agreement. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 07022012 be set aside.
7. The respondent has contested the appeal by filing its reply PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 3/10 and in reply it is submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and has been passed on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 54/1999 titled as M/s Petroleum and Petro Chemical Purveyors Vs. Union of India and Ors. which was on identical facts and similar circumstances. It is stated that vide its order dated 30082005, after hearing the parties the Ld. Estate Officer directed the respondent to furnish its version qua the damages in the light of order dated 08011999 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 54/1999 titled as M/s Petroleum and Petro Chemical Purveyors Vs. Union of India and Ors.
8. On 08112005, the respondent furnished its version qua the damages in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 08011999 and the copy was supplied to the appellant. It is stated that the orders passed by the Ld. Estate Officer was complied by the respondent by 01032012, 30052012 and finally on 30082012. It is stated that the impugned order dated 07022012 was passed as per the implied consent of the appellant because at no point of time there was any whisper on the part of the appellant that the Estate Officer should not pass the judgment as per th order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. In reply to the appeal it is denied that the license in respect of the land in question was cancelled as the respondent has failed to PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 4/10 pay the revision made in the license fee as per he rules and regulations of the department. It is averred that inspite of admitting the obligation of revising the license only at the interval of 5 years the appellant revised the fee at their sweet will without any regard to reason or logic and demanded the same from the respondent. It is further averred that there have been very frequent revisions of license fee which clearly and conclusively established that the revision was arbitrarily as well as illegal and also against the admitted obligations of the Railway to revise the license fee at the interval of five years. It is further averred that the respondent had been challenging the enhancement of license fee on various occasions being arbitrary and further stated that by no stretch of imagination the respondent can be categorized as unauthorized occupant of the Govt. land.
10. It is further submitted that in para 2 of its appeal the appellant had relied on its letter No. 118664/CP/SSB/707 dated 20011999 addressed to respondent stating that it had claimed Rs. 7,89,00,637/ as per the policy vide No. 2005/LML/18/3 dated 10022005 which came later on from the Govt. of India Ministry of Railway for the settlement of the pending cases. It is further averred that one fails to understand that how in the year 1999 the appellant had made claim on the basis of a policy dated 10022005. It is further averred that it clearly shows that the said policy was not in existence in 1999 and as PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 5/10 such policy cannot be applied retrospectively. It is further averred that the appeal has been filed with malafide motive and evil design in total disregard of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been relied by the Ld. Estate Officer while passing the impugned order.
11. It is further averred that in para 3 of the appeal, the appellant sated that the license fee was revised a per clause no. 17 of the agreement but clause 17 of the agreement does not talk about arbitrary revision of the license fee in violation of the Railway Engineering Code and also in violation of appellant's admitted obligations that the license fee was to be revised at the interval of five years. It is further averred that clause 17 of the agreement only stipulate that license fee is liable to be revised at the discretion of administration after the service of one month notice on the licensee of the administration's intention to revise the license fee but as a matter of fact never any such notice was given regarding intention for revision of the license fee. It is further averred that the Ld. Estate Officer has passed a well reasoned order based upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment because facts in both the cases were identical and similar.
12. In reply to the grounds of appeal it is submitted that: the impugned order dated 07022012 is well reasoned order and as per settled principles of law and it does not suffer from any error of PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 6/10 jurisdiction or arbitrariness; that the Ld. Estate Officer had passed the impugned order after examination of all records and due application of mind; that the Ld. Estate Officer had considered the Railway Engineering Code PARA 1024 and also relied on settled principles of justice, equity and fair play; that clause 17 is being misinterpreted by the appellant and that said clause nowhere staes that license fee could be increased arbitrarily and whims and fancies of the appellant ignoring the Railway Engineering Code PARA 1024 which mandates of increase of license fee at the interval of minimum five years. It is denied that the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
13. The appellant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the appeal.
14. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records of this case.
15. Vide impugned order dated 07022012, the Ld. Estate Officer a has observed as under:
"I have gone through entire record available with me. Admittedly, like in M/s Petroleum and Petrochemical Purveyors, the possession of the premises has since been handed over by the respondent to the applicant. The remaining controversy is only with regard to the amount payable PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 7/10 by way of rent damages by the respondent to the applicant. In the peculiar circumstances of this case also like the aforesaid case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and without expressing any opinion on any question of law, it will be appropriate to direct, with a view to give the matter a complete quietus, the respondent should pay to the applicant a sum of Rs. 91,45,167/ in full and final settlement of all the claims to the applicant arising out of claim for recovery of rent / damages of Rs. 4,55,32,554/. Since the respondent had already paid to the applicant sum of Rs. 58,67,472/ now therefore only sum of Rs. (91,45,167 - 5867472) = Rs. 32,77,695/ shall be payable by the respondent to the applicant. Let the payment of the said amount be made in three equal installments payable every three months with the first installment from 1st March 2012. In the event of default of payment of any installment, the balance amount of the default, shall bear interest @ 12% per annum and shall be recoverable by the applicant".
16. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present case is totally covered within the four corners of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 54/1999 PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 8/10 titled as M/s Petroleum and Petro Chemical Purveyors Vs. Union of India and Ors. and the ratio of damages as imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that particular case has been followed by the Ld. Estate Officer.
17. I have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 54/1999 titled as M/s Petroleum and Petro Chemical Purveyors Vs. Union of India and Ors. wherein the rent / damages claimed were to the tune of Rs. 3,23,62,623/ and against this the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 65,00,000/.
18. In the present case also the only dispute is with regard to the amount payable by the respondent by way of rent / damages as the possession of the premises has already been handed over by the respondent to the appellant. The Ld. Estate Officer followed the calculation of damages as done in the case "supra" by virtue of which the appellant of that appeal was directed to pay Rs.65,00,000/ in lieu of Rs.3,23,62,623/. Following the said formula, the Ld. Estate Officer directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.91,45,167/ in full and final settlement towards the claim of Rs.4,55,32,554/ which the respondent has already paid to the appellant in 3 installments.
19. Therefore, in view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 9/10 07022012, passed by the Ld. Estate officer, the same is, therefore, upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Record of the Estate Officer be sent back alongwith an attested coy of the judgment. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court today i.e. on 18122018) Digitally signed by RAJNISH RAJNISH BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date: 2018.12.19 16:33:39 +0530 (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) District & Sessions Judge (N/W) Rohini Courts : Delhi 18122018 PPA No. 5/16 Page no. 10/10