Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka Ors vs Narayandasji S/O Raghunathji Ladda on 1 October, 2020
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
Bench: Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
RFA No.6002/2012
BETWEEN:
1. The State Of Karnataka
Through Deputy Commissioner
Mini Vidhana Soudha
Gulbarga
2. The Asst. Commissioner
Sedam, Dist. Gulbarga
3. The Chief Officer
Town Municipal Council
Sedam, Dist. Gulbarga
... APPELLANTS
(By Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, Govt. Advocate)
AND:
Narayandasji
S/o Raghunathji Ladda
Since dead by his LR's
R1(A) Smt. Premlatha W/o Rameshwar
Age: 56 Years, Occ: Not known
R/o Tq. Sedam, Dist. Gulbarga
2
R1(B) Rameshchandr S/o Narayandasji
Age: 54 Years, Occ: Business
R/o Tq. Sedam, Dist. Gulbarga
R1(C) Sureshchandr S/o Narayandasji
Age: 53 Years, Occ: Not Known
R/o Tq. Sedam, Dist. Gulbarga
R1(D) Smt. Srishantha
W/o Govindlal Kausat
Age: 48 Years, Occ: Not Known
R/o Tq. Sedam, Dist. Gulbarga
R1(E) Omprakash S/o Narayandasji
Age: 46 Years, Occ: Business
R/o Tq. Sedam, Dist. Gulbarga
... Respondents
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
This Regular First Appeal is filed Under Section 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to allow the
appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed
by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Sedam, in O.S.No.7/2009
dated 20.04.2011.
This appeal having been heard, reserved for
judgment on 28.08.2020 and coming on for
pronouncement of judgment this day, the Court
delivered the following:-
3
JUDGMENT
This regular first appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.7/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sedum challenging the judgment and decree awarding a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as damages for the unlawful demolition of a compound wall surrounding the property of the plaintiff, two rooms constructed therein and loss of raw and finished stones.
2. The plaintiff claimed in his plaint that he was the owner of a land bearing Sy.613/2 which was converted by the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga for non-agricultural commercial purposes on 03.01.1997. He claimed that on the southern portion of the aforesaid land was the land bearing Sy.No.612 where polishing units of others were established. He claimed that there was no road lying on the southern side of his property and the sketch issued by the Deputy Commissioner while converting the land for non-agricultural purposes also did not indicate the existence of a road on the southern side. He claimed that 4 after getting the land converted, he established a polishing unit in the land and had constructed a compound wall enclosing the said polishing unit. The compound wall measured 391 feet in length, 1 feet in width and 10 feet in height. The foundation of the said wall was 4½ feet deep and was 1 meter wide. The plaintiff claimed that the said wall was constructed out of stone and cement at a cost of Rs.8,00,000/-. He had also constructed rooms in the land at a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the southern edge of the property. He claimed that he had also stored rough polishing stones of export quality which were to be sent to exporters and finished polished stones worth Rs.3,00,000/- were kept in the southern portion of the land. He also claimed that rough stones worth Rs.2,00,000/- were kept in the southern portion of the land. He claimed that on 10.02.2007 at around 6-30 p.m., the defendant No.3 and its officers and along with the defendant No.2 came to the land of the plaintiff and trespassed and high handedly demolished the entire southern compound wall and the rooms and caused extensive damage to the rough and 5 polished stones worth Rs.1,00,000-/- kept in the southern portion of the land. He also contended that the room that was constructed was demolished. He claimed that the total value of the demolished compound wall, the room and the value of the finished and rough goods taken away and the damage caused to the property of the plaintiff was Rs.11,00,000/-. Therefore, he caused a notice of demand directing under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the defendants to restore the property to its original position or pay a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- within 30 days. The plaintiff had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11689/2007 against the illegal excesses by the defendants. But the said writ petition was dismissed as no relief could be granted in the said petition. The plaintiff therefore filed a suit for recovery of damages of a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- and for mandatory injunction to construct the compound wall and also construct the rooms and restore the property as it stood prior to its demolition on 10.02.2007.
6
3. The defendant No.2 submitted his written statement denying the plaint averments and also denied the alleged demolition of the compound wall on 10.02.2007.
4. The defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement fully denying the claim of the plaintiff and the allegation that the compound wall was demolished. Based on the aforesaid contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.613/2 of Sedam as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether he further proves that defendants illegally demolished the compound wall built in his land?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that due to illegal acts of defendants he suffered loss of Rs.11,00,000/-?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction order as sought for?
5. To what relief plaintiff is entitled to?
6. What decree or order?"7
5. The son of the plaintiff was examined as PW.1, the owner of a lorry which was employed for ferrying the demolished stones and other materials was examined as PW.2, the owner of a bulldozer was examined as PW.3 and a witness as PW.4, a chartered engineer from whom the plaintiff had obtained the quotation for construction of the building as PW.5 and he marked Exs.P.1 to P.42. On the other hand, the defendants were examined DW.1 and DW.2.
6. The Trial Court considered the evidence on record and more particularly, Ex.P.41 which was the parawise remarks submitted by the defendants to the Government Advocate who represented the defendants in WP.No.11689/2007 wherein, the defendants had categorically admitted of having demolished the compound wall. The Trial Court held that having regard to the length, width and height of the compound and in view of the fact that the defendants had taken a mutually destructive plea that they had not demolished the compound wall and in 8 the absence of any material to show that the assessment of the cost of construction was not based on the standard rates fixed by the Public Works Department, the Trial Court felt that the compensation claimed by the plaintiff was just, proper and reasonable and thus, decreed the suit and directed the defendants to jointly and severally pay the compensation award amount along with interest. However, the trial Court did not grant interest on the amount.
7. The defendants aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court have filed this first appeal.
8. This Court in terms of the Order dated 30-11-2015 on IA 1/2015 had restrained the widening of the existing road on the southern side of the land bearing Sy.No.613/2. Later, this Court in terms of the Order dated 09-12-2015 directed a survey and demarcation of the land belonging to the respondents/plaintiffs. Thereafter on 9 18-12-2015, the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that if a definitive marking is made with regard to the edge of the Court, his client is prepared to put up the compound wall in order to protect the property. The ADLR and the project officer who were present before the Court agreed that they would with the assistance of the surveyor, draw the marking indicating the boundary of the respondents property and the edge of the road so as to enable the respondents to put up the compound wall. Based on the above, a survey sketch was placed on record on 12-01-2016 and the respondents were called upon to file objections to the survey report. However, objections are not filed till date. Thus, the survey sketch and the report is accepted and is made part of the Court record. The survey sketch indicates that a 12 meter ring road for Sedam passes through the land bearing Sy.No.613/2, belonging to the respondents/plaintiffs on the southern side. The respondents have also placed on record a copy of the layout plan approved by the Department of Town Planning, Gulbarga in respect of Sy.No.614/1 and 614/2 10 on 07-05-1997 and in respect of Sy.No.615/3 on 19-03-1986. Likewise a layout plan was approved by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Gulbarga in Sy.No.615/1 on 24-03-08. It is stated that in all these survey numbers, there is a reference to the 12 meter road on the southern side.
9. The defendants vociferously contended that there existed a road on the southern side of the property of the plaintiff which he had unlawfully encroached and that the defendants had removed the encroachment so as to allow free passage to the users of the said road. The defendants however accepted that they had not followed the due process of law before taking the drastic measure to demolish the compound wall constructed by the plaintiff.
10. I have heard the counsel for the defendants and the counsel for the plaintiffs. Perused the plaint, written statements, the evidence on record and the exhibits, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court as 11 well as the grounds of appeal urged. The following points for consideration would arise in this appeal:-
1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendants had demolished the compound wall?
2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in relying upon the parawise remarks to return a finding that the compound wall was demolished?
3. Whether, the plaintiff was entitled to claim compensation? If yes whether the plaintiff had placed enough material to establish the loss caused?
If yes whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-?
4. Whether the Trial Court was justified in not awarding interest ?
Point No.1:-
11. Though the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiff to the land bearing Sy.No.613/2, yet in the course of evidence DW.1 and DW.2, they have unqualifiedly admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the aforesaid 12 land and that the same was converted for non-residential commercial purposes. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they seriously disputed the demolition of the compound wall. The evidence of DW.1 is not relevant as he was not present when the alleged demolition took place as he claimed that he took over as the Chief Officer of defendant No.3 during 2009-2010. D.W2 in his chief examination admitted that the plaintiff had established a stone polishing unit at Sedam and claimed that the defendants had not demolished the compound as alleged.
However, when he was cross examined, he admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of the land in Sy.No.613/2 and that he was in possession. When he was confronted the parawise remarks (Ex.P.41) submitted by the defendant No.3 to the Government Advocate in W.P.No.11689/2007, DW.2 admitted that the statements contained in the parawise remarks were true. He further deposed that in the year 2007-08 there was a stone polishing unit in Sy.No.613/2 and that there were two rooms and in the remaining area raw and finished stones were stored. He 13 also admitted that the plaintiff had constructed a compound wall around the property which was plastered with cement. He further deposed that before demolishing the compound wall the defendant No.3 had not issued any prior notice or held any enquiry. He further deposed that the demolition of the compound wall was done under the supervision of the Chief Officer of the respondent No.3 and the Tahsildar of Sedam Taluk. Further, he deposed that they had not measured the property of the plaintiff but claimed that if there were any unauthorized construction, the Chief Officer of defendant No.3 could demolish it without issuing any prior notice. He then retracted from his earlier deposition and claimed that only the stones/ debris and bushes lying alongside the road were removed. He failed to identify the photographs at Exs.P.16 to P.39. He however deposed that on the said day the son of the plaintiff pleaded with the Chief Officer of the defendant No.3 to stop the work undertaken by the defendant No.3. 14
12. In the photographs at Exs.P.21, P.28 and P.39 a heavy earth moving equipment is found loading the debris of the demolished structure into a Lorry bearing registration number MH-04-P-7610 and a tractor. PW.3 is the owner of a Tata X-60 Poclain machine and he deposed that the defendant No.3 had hired it for demolition of the compound wall of the property of the plaintiff and the hire was fixed @ Rs.700 per hour. He deposed that he was a witness to the demolition. However, in his cross examination, he claimed that the defendant No.3 took on hire a Hitachi Poclain belonging to him. However, he deposed that the defendant No.3 would entrust work only after obtaining a quotation and after concluding the proceedings relating to the hire charges for the equipment. However, he claimed that the defendant No.3 informally took the equipment on hire and the hire charges were paid by the defendant No.3 by cash. He deposed that normally the defendant No.3 would pay the hire charges by cheque and obtain a receipt but he was paid by cash. He did not place on record any documents to show that he was the 15 owner of the said Hitachi Poclain machine used for the alleged demolition. Ex.P.21 shows a JCB vehicle named "Sri Sai Krishna" loading material onto a tractor while Ex- P28 shows a TATA-HITACHI JCB loading material onto a lorry bearing registration number MH-04-P-7610. It is improbable that the JCB owned by PW.2 could carry the name "Sri Sai Krishna" as this witness is a Muslim. This witness did not mention the registration number of the JCB owned by him and he did not produce any documents of the JCB. Further there were no photographs amongst Exs.P.16 to P.39 which indicated the involvement of a JCB belonging to this witness. Hence the testimony of this witness is doubtful and cannot be believed.
13. PW.2 is a transporter who claimed to know the plaintiff as he used to visit the polishing unit of the plaintiff for the transport of stones. He deposed that there was a compound wall surrounding the property of the plaintiff which measured 390 feet in length and 10 feet high and that there was a room. He claimed that the defendant No.3 16 approached him and asked him to rent out his lorries for one day @ Rs.1200/- per day. He claimed that he agreed and sent two lorries bearing registration numbers KA-32/3267 and KA-32-3626. He deposed that on 10-02-2007, the municipal authorities and the Assistant Commissioner entered into the land of the plaintiff and demolished the compound wall and the rooms and caused damage to the stones and took away the materials in his trucks. He identified the lorry found in Ex.P.28 as belonging to him. In his cross examination he stated that on 10-02-2007, the Assistant Commissioner had orally requested him to send the lorries. He deposed that the plaintiff too had availed his services for transportation of stones and that due to the goodwill between them, the witness never rejected the requests of the plaintiff.
14. The evidence of this witness cannot be believed as the lorry found in Ex.P.28 bears registration number MH-04-P-7610 but this witness claimed that he had sent two lorries bearing registration number 17 KA-32/3267 and KA-32-3626. The plaintiff had not placed any photographs showing that the two lorries bearing registration number KA-32/3267 and KA-32-3626 were involved in the alleged transportation of the demolished material and raw and finished stones. Further neither the plaintiff nor PW.2 placed any material on record in proof of the fact that PW.2 was the owner of the lorry bearing registration number MH-04-P-7610. In the absence of any proof of payment of hire charges by the defendant Nos.2 and 3, it is not credible to believe the testimony of this witness. Having regard to the fact that this witness was regularly transporting the goods for the plaintiff, it could be probable that this witness was planted by the plaintiff.
15. PW.4 is a witness who deposed that he was an eye witness to the demolition of the compound wall which measured 391 feet in length, 1 feet in width and 10 feet high. He claimed that the plaintiff had stored export quality other polished stones on the southern side of his property. He deposed that on 10-02-2007 at about 6-30 pm, the 18 authorities of the defendant No.3 demolished the southern portion of the compound wall and the rooms and damaged the stones stored and took away the materials. However in his chief examination, he deposed that he also owned a polishing unit and lived 2 kilometers away from the unit of the plaintiff. Though he claimed that 50-60 people had assembled at the spot, he couldn't even remember even one person.
16. PW.5 is a chartered engineer who claimed to know the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had established a stone polishing unit in the land bearing Sy.No.613/2. He deposed that the plaintiff asked him to estimate the cost of the wall and the rooms that were demolished. Accordingly, he claimed that he prepared Ex.P.40. In his cross examination, he deposed that since the plaintiff requested him to give an estimate for the reconstruction of the compound wall and rooms, he furnished Ex.P.40. He claimed that Ex.P.40 was prepared as per the PWD DSR 19 rates (Departmental Standard rates) but he had not mentioned the rates in Ex.P.40.
17. PW.1, the son of the plaintiff was examined and he reiterated the contents of the plaint and contended that on 10-02-2007, taking advantage of the fact that it was a second Saturday when the Courts would be closed, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 went to his land, trespassed onto it and demolished the southern side compound wall, rooms and damaged the rough and polished stones stored there and took away the materials of the demolished compound wall and the raw and finished stones. He deposed that though he tried talking to the authorities, they refused to listen. He claimed that no prior notice of demolition was issued. He deposed that there was no road lying in any portion of his property and that no portion of his property was acquired for any public purpose.
18. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions put to him stating that he had concocted a false case against the defendants. However, he denied the 20 suggestion that Sedam ring road did not have anything to do with his property. He claimed that he had obtained license from the municipal authorities of Sedam for construction of the rooms and the polishing unit. Curiously, he did not produce any documents in this regard.
19. Thus, if the evidence of PW.1 and DW.2 is taken into consideration, it is evident that the defendants had demolished the compound wall and the two rooms constructed by the plaintiff in the land bearing Sy.No.613/2. The photographs marked as Ex.P.16 to P.39 do indicate that a portion of the compound wall was demolished and the fact that DW.2 admitted in his cross examination that the son of the plaintiff pleaded with the defendant Nos.2 and 3 to stop the ongoing work indicates that the defendants No.3 had demolished the compound wall and the two rooms. Further, the sketch prepared by the ADLR pursuant to the Order passed by this Court would indicate that the existing road passes through the land of the plaintiff and this also could be the reason for 21 the defendant No.3 to take law into its hands to demolish the construction. Thus, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and it is held that there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant No.3 had demolished the compound wall on the southern side of the property of the plaintiff.
Point No.2:-
20. The Trial Court relied upon Ex.P.41 to hold that the plaintiff had proved the demolition of the compound wall by the defendant No.3. It is relevant to note that Ex.P.41 was the parawise remarks that the defendant No.3 had submitted to the Government Advocate to file the statement of objections in W.P.No.11689/2007. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.3 had filed its statement of objections before this Court in W.P.No.11689/2007. The parawise remarks was an unpublished official record relating to the affairs of the defendant No.3 and the defendant No.3 had voluntarily 22 furnished a copy thereof to the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, Ex.P.41 was though a privileged communication between the defendant No.3 and its counsel, but yet the defendant No.3 had waived its right to refuse access to the said document by the plaintiff. Hence the Trial Court was right in allowing Ex.P.41 to be marked in evidence and also in relying upon it. Hence point No.2 is answered accordingly.
Point No.3:-
21. The first condition attached to the Order of conversion of the land as per Ex.P.3 was that the plaintiff was required to furnish a layout plan of the industry to be set up and obtain approval from the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Sedam Development Authority. The conversion sketch would definitely not indicate the roads and other amenities provided in a comprehensive development plan prepared by the Development Authority. It is only when the plaintiff approaches a development authority under Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and 23 Country Planning Act, 1961 that the authorities would earmark the roads and other amenities and require the plaintiff to relinquish that portion of the area, after which a development plan would be issued. In the case on hand, the plaintiff claimed that he had obtained a plan and licence from the defendant No.3 for the purpose of establishing the polishing unit but failed to produce it before the Trial Court. However, the defendant No.3 which is an instrumentality of the State bound by the Rule of law cannot take law into its hands and act like a private litigant and demolish the compound wall and other structures. If only the defendant No.3 had issued a notice as provided under Section 189 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the plaintiff would have made arrangement for shifting of the compound wall and also take care of the raw material and finished stones that the plaintiff had allegedly stored. It could also be that the area claimed by the defendant no.3 was much lesser than what is prescribed in the master plan. It is in order to weed out these uncertainties that the Rule of law prescribes a procedure 24 for authorities such as the defendants to follow while dealing with a citizen and his rights. The way in which the defendant No.3 had scheduled the demolition on a second Saturday that too in the late evening hours leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the same was done high handedly and illegally without following the due process of law. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to claim damages from the defendants for the illegal and high handed act of unilaterally deciding that the construction of the compound wall and the structures therein were illegal and required demolition. This view is fortified by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Muni Suvrat- Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh vs Arun Nathuram Gaikwad and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 590 and Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited and another vs Union of India and others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 673.
22. In the statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC (Ex.P.9), the plaintiff claimed that the cost of the compound wall was Rs.8,00,000/- and the cost of the 25 room was Rs.1,00,000/-. The price of the finished stones that were damaged was Rs.1,00,000/- and the cost of rough stones damaged was Rs.1,00,000-/. A perusal of the plaint would disclose that the plaintiff had laid claim for the value of the compound wall (Rs.8,00,000/-), two rooms (Rs.1,00,000/-), damage caused to rough and polished stones (Rs.1,00,000/-) but claimed total compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-. In the chief examination of PW.1, he claimed that the total value of the demolished compound wall, room and the value of finished and rough stones at a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-.
23. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the plaintiff to the property bearing Sy.No.613/2 which is evident from Ex.P.2 and there is no dispute that this land was converted for non agricultural commercial purposes which is evident from Ex.P.3. There is also no dispute that the plaintiff had established a stone polishing unit in the aforesaid survey number which is evident from Ex.P.6 and the photographs at Exs.P.16 to P.39 as well as the 26 deposition of DW.2. Exs.P.16 to P.39 are the photographs taken of the alleged demolition. The only document that was placed on record to prove the damages sustained was Ex.P.40 which was the valuation of by the chartered engineer who estimated the cost of construction of the compound wall at a sum of Rs.11,50,000/-. The evidence of DW.1 relevant for the purpose of this case is extracted below:
24. DW.2 who was a witness to the demolition of the compound wall deposed as follows:
27
25. Except the above, the plaintiff did not place any material to establish the damage caused to the raw and finished stones that were allegedly damaged. It is true that DW.2 also admitted that the plaintiff had stored raw and finished stones in the remaining property. But except this, the plaintiff had not produced any material disclosing the actual extant of damage. After all in a suit for damages due to actionable wrong by the defendants, the plaintiff is bound to plead and prove the actual extent of damages sustained. The plaintiff has marked its annual statements as Exs.P.7 and P.8 (for the year 2007-08 and 2006-07 respectively) but that would not reflect anything about the actual damages sustained. It may be possible that during the course of demolition some raw and finished stones could have been damaged but the Court cannot make an assumptive assessment of the damages unless there are 28 some circumstances/evidence that indicate the extent of damage and that the claim of the plaintiff is probable. The plaintiff did not disclose how many finished stones and raw stones were damaged and what were their value. He did not place on record the stock statement as on the alleged date of demolition and the statement of stock after demolition. Under the circumstances, it is held that the plaintiff had failed to produce believable evidence to establish the loss caused to the raw and finished stones. However, he had furnished Ex.P.40 and also examined the author of Ex.P.40 who deposed that the rates mentioned in Ex.P.40 were based on the standard rates fixed by the Public Works Department and the defendants had failed to prove that the rates were not as prescribed by the Department of Public Works.
26. As stated earlier, the demolition of the compound wall and the rooms constructed by the plaintiff was primarily due to the fault of the plaintiff in not obtaining the permission from the defendant no.3 for 29 establishment of the polishing unit. But what has to be noted is that the plaintiff obtained the licence to establish the unit in the land in the year 1997 and from then on he was operating the business and the defendants have turned a blind eye for nearly 10 years. If the defendants had promptly warned the plaintiff soon after, he undertook the construction, the loss could have been mitigated. The defendants who lay low for well over 10 years suddenly took law into their hands by decrying that the plaintiff has encroached into the road, demolished the construction. Thus, the defendants too are liable for violating the rule of law. The plaintiff claimed in the plaint that there were polishing units in Sy.No.612 lying on the southern side of his property. However, Exs.P.16 to P.39 (photographs) indicate that a road ran alongside the debris of the compound wall. Thus, it is evident that a road ran alongside the southern boundary of the property of the plaintiff and the ADLR who submitted a report to this Court has categorically stated that the road ran through the property of the plaintiff on the southern side. The 30 defendants have evacuated the plaintiff from this portion by demolishing the compound wall and the structures.
27. The stones found in the photographs are apparently waste Shahabad stones that were used for the construction of the compound wall. Having regard to the fact that Ex.P.40 is not seriously disputed, and that the plaintiff had established that the defendant no.3 had illegally demolished the compound wall without following the due process of law and also having regard to the fact that the plaintiff was guilty of volenti-non-fit-injuria by not obtaining the requisite permission from the defendant No.3 before establishing the polishing unit, it is felt appropriate that the cost of the compound wall and the structures as assessed by PW.5 in his report as at Ex.P.40 is accepted as the loss caused. Taking into account that both the defendant No.3 and the plaintiff have contributed in equal measure, the proportionate damages is awarded by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from the defendant No.3. It is upto the 31 defendant No.3 to recover the same from its officials responsible for the illegal demolition.
Point No.4:-
28. The Trial Court failed to award interest on the claim made by the plaintiff and did not disclose any reason for not doing so. The suit is for damages for the actionable wrong by the defendant No.3. The Court was empowered under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure to award pendente lite interest, which was primarily designed to beat the rate of inflation. As a matter of fact, in the statutory notice issued by the plaintiff, he had demanded damages of a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- and thus, there was a demand for money and the Trial Court ought to have awarded interest on the amount of damages payable. Hence it is ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the suit till repayment.
29. One fact that left the Court disturbed is the way in which the officials of the defendant No.3 have 32 conducted themselves in defending this case. While, the defendant No.3 had acknowledged that it had demolished the compound wall and the structures in the parawise remarks, yet in its written statement, it stated that it had not demolished the construction. DW.2 deposed before the Court that he was present at the spot when the compound was demolished under the supervision of the Chief Officer of the defendant No.3 and the Tahsildar. Proceedings before the Court are solemn and have to be conducted with alacrity and seriousness. The defendant No.3 had filed a false written statement before the Court and thus had committed an offence punishable under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court would therefore exercise jurisdiction under Section 340 of Cr. P.C. and direct the Registry of the Trial Court to forthwith lodge a complaint against the concerned official of the defendant No.3 who had deposed to the correctness of the written statement filed in the suit.
33
30. Hence this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 20.04.2011 passed by the Trial Court is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- as damages payable by the defendant No.3 along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the suit till repayment. The plaintiff is entitled to proportionate costs in the suit.
The plaintiff is at liberty to contest the area demarcated as a road by the defendant No.3 within his property.
Registry is directed to draw a decree.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP