Delhi District Court
Ranjeet Singh vs Estate Officer on 28 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV RAO, ADJ-03 / NEW
DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI.
PPA No. 33/19
CNR No. DLND01-019523-2019
Ranjeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Singh,
R/o House No. B-1285,
Gali No. 4, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
........Appellant
Versus
1. Estate Officer
Through Director
Directorate of Estate
(Litigation Section),
Room No. 514 'C' Wing,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Directorate of Estate
Through Deputy Director,
(Subletting Section),
5th Floor,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
..........Respondents
Date of institution : 18.10.2019
Date on which reserved for judgment : 28.08.2023
Date of decision : 28.08.2023
Decision : Dismissed
PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 1/22
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging order dated 18.07.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the Estate Officer.
Appeal/Appellant's version
2. It is the appellant's case that he is working as Senior Accountant, PAO DGE, M.O Labour and Employment, S.S.Bhawan, New Delhi and is/was living with his family at government quarter No. D-612, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the premises) and had been paying all the dues like electricity, water & gas charges.
2.1 It is his case that in the year 2016, an inspection of the premises was conducted by the concerned department of the respondents, in his absence, as he was in the office at that time and his family members had also gone to market to buy some essential household items.
2.2 It is his case that thereafter he received a notice dated 07.04.2016 to appear before Asst. Director of Estate on 21.04.2016 in the enquiry into subletting of the premises and accordingly he appeared before the Asst. Director of Estate on PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 2/22 21.04.2016 as well as submitted all his documents in support of his case while denying the allegations of subletting.
2.3 It is his case that the enquiry officer without giving a reasonable opportunity to him to present his case, passed order vide its letter No.DE.8.6632.SJN.E.2016 dated 05.09.2016 cancelling the the allotment of the premises on the ground of subletting.
2.4 It is his case that he challenged the above cancellation order within the period of 30 days of the receipt of the same vide appeal before Directorate of Estate-II (Appellate Authority), however, since no communication regarding the said appeal was received by him, he without prejudice to his rights and without admitting the charges of subletting vacated the premises on 28.06.2017.
2.5 It is his case that to his utter shock and dismay he received the show cause notice dated 19.02.2019 under sub- section 3 of Section 7 of the Act issued by respondent no.1.
2.6 It is his case that he appeared before respondent no. 1 on 25.04.2019 and stated that all the documents have already been submitted in the enquiry proceedings while further informing about the pendency of appeal against the cancellation order dated 05.09.2016 and subsequently placed on record the copy of the said appeal & representation dated 29.05.2019 PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 3/22 addressed to Director of Estate-II before the Ld. Estate officer, however, the concerned department did not submit any reply to the above representation till date.
2.7 It is his case that the conduct of respondent no. 1 was enough to give rise to his legitimate expectation for quashing of the show cause notice dated 19.02.2019 as the above representation was pending with the Director of Estate-II along with appeal against the cancellation order dated 05.09.2016, which facts remained unrebutted till date since the department had not communicated about the status of the same to respondent no.1.
2.8 It is his case that the Ld. Estate Officer passed the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice, thereby raising an illegal, arbitrary demand of damages to the tune of Rs.12,31,090/- against him and the impugned order was not communicated to him till 10.10.2019.
2.9 It is his case that he received the office memorandum dated 19.09.2019, from his office, regarding the clarification in respect of Rs.12,31,090/- but he was not provided the impugned order and after running from pillar to post regarding the status of his case, he was provided certified copy of the impugned order on 10.10.2019 on submitting an application dated 10.01.2019 to the Estate Officer.
PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 4/22 2.10 It is his case that the impugned order is absolutely arbitráty, illegal & totally perverse as the same has been passed contrary to the Rule 8 of the Act as there is no material on record as per sub-section (c) of Rule 8 which was taken into consideration by the Estate Officer while assessing the damages.
2.11 It is his case that no assessment was done by the Estate Officer before passing the impugned order and the same is entirely based on the assessment done by the Directorate of Estate and is thus a one sided order which is liable to be set aside.
2.12 It is his case that he was never provided any show cause notice as to why the damages may not be assessed on the basis of telescopic method. It his case that no such show cause was ever issued to him since issuance of enquiry notice dated 07.04.2016, cancellation order dated 05.09.2016 or show cause notice dated 19.02.2019 and all these notices as well as cancellation order are silent about calculation of damages on the alleged telescopic method and therefore impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained.
2.13 It is his case that the impugned order is liable to be quashed/set aside as the Estate Officer has failed to consider his submissions that respondent no. 1 cannot jump in raising the fresh grounds for claiming damages through telescopic method when no such ground of claiming damages through telescopic PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 5/22 method was ever raised either in any of the show cause notices or in the cancellation order.
2.14 It is his case that keeping him in dark at every stage as regards to claiming damages through telescopic method till passing of impugned order amounts to violation of principle of natural justice and respondent no. 1 cannot recover the damages through telescopic method from the date of inspection and he is only liable to pay damages if any, from the date of cancellation order till date of vacating the premises.
2.15 It is his case that the evidence and documents placed by him before the Estate Officer remained unchallenged & unrebutted till date since the department of respondent no.1 did not file any document negating the stand taken by him before the Estate Officer about the pendency of appeal against the cancellation order and the representation dated 29.05.2019 till date.
2.16 Hence, the present appeal.
Reply
3. It was pleaded that the appeal is not maintainable as the same has no iota of substance, material facts and is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts.
PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 6/22 3.1 It was pleaded that the appellant was allotted the premises on 28.07.2011 and as a result of enquiries made, it has been proved that he had not been residing in the same.
3.2 It was pleaded that the premises was inspected by a team of officials and as per the Inspection Report, one lady was found in the premises who did not open the door and though the inspecting team asked her to co-operate in the inspection but she misbehaved and refused to sign the IR. It was pleaded that the inspecting team reported that the premises was a suspected case of subletting.
3.3 It was pleaded that as per rules, show-cause notice dated 07.04.2016 was issued to the appllellant to show cause on 21.04.2016 as to why the allotment in his name may not be cancelled and he appeared for hearing on the scheduled date as well as submitted relevant documents along with hearing form to prove his occupancy.
3.4 It was pleaded that the appellant was questioned about the old lady and he stated that the lady Smt. Ramwati, who was present at the quarter at the time of inspection, had come from Bulandshahr, so, she did not open the door, however, he couldn't substantiate why she was present in the premises and PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 7/22 also admitted that there was no relation of Smt. Ramwati with his family and also failed to give any address proof of her.
3.5 It was pleaded that therefore penalty as per para 2 and 4 of Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2016 was imposed on him for alleged misuse of the premises and vide speaking order dated 05.09.2016 cancellation order was issued to him on account of subletting of the premises with the direction to vacate the same or file appeal, in case he was aggrieved with the order, within 30 days of receipt of the order, however, no such appeal was filed by him.
3.6 It was pleaded that when the premises was not vacated, the case was referred to the Estate Officer, Litigation Section to initiate the eviction proceedings vide order dated 02.12.2016 and the Estate Officer, after following due procedure under the Act passed the impugned order.
3.7 It was pleaded that after going through all the policy guidelines and documentary evidences the cancellation of the premises in his unauthorised occupation was done and damage bill amount of Rs.12,31,090/- was levied upon him for his unauthorised occupation of the premises which bill has been forwarded to his office with a request to recover the outstanding government dues from him and remit the same to this Directorate through DDO at the earliest.
PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 8/22 3.8 It was pleaded that the appellant is a senior officer in the Government of India, is well versed with the rules & regulation of allotment of accommodation but he deliberately stayed in the premises, after cancellation of allotment made on the ground of subletting and therefore, he is liable to be penalized.
Findings
4. I have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties, given due consideration to the rival contentions raised at bar and have carefully gone through the record. I have also gone through the original/office record as placed on record by the respondents. I have also considered the case laws relied by the appellant i.e. Ran Singh Kohar Vs. Union of India and ors dated 17.11.2014 WP (C) 7885/2014 CM nos. 18485-18486/2014 and UOI and anr Vs. Sunil Dutt dated 27.01.2020 WP (C) 8850/2007.
4.1 The premises in question which was allotted to the appellant was inspected by the department/inspecting team on 11.03.2016 at about 01.00 p.m. and neither appellant nor any of his family member was found at the premises. The relevant portion of inspection report reads as under:-
"During the inspection one lady was in the room. She did not open the door. We asked her to cooperate in inspection but she misbehaved to us. She also refused to sign in IR."
PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 9/22 4.2 On the basis of the above inspection report appellant was issued notice dated 07.04.2016 to show cause on 21.04.2016 as to why the allotment of the premises should not be cancelled. The appellant furnished his reply to the department/Directorate of Estate and finding no merits in the same, the allotment was cancelled. The relevant portion of order dated 05.09.2016 in this regard reads as under:-
" As a result of enquiries made,it has been proved that you have not been residing in the General Pool residential accommodation allotted to you, the particulars of which are specified in the schedule below and have completely sublet the same to some unauthorized persons in contravention of the provisions contained in SR317-B-20 of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963.
2. In exercise of the powers conferred under SR-317-B-21 of the above said Rules, the competent authority has decided to cancel the allotment of the said General Pool residential accommodation in your name on account of unauthorized subletting of the said government accommodation by you. The allotment of the said Government accommodation stands cancelled in your favour from the date of issue of this Order. It is also decided to declare you as ineligible for allotment of General Pool residential accommdation for the remaining period of your service from the date of cancellation Order.
3. It has been decided that you should be charged damages from the date of inspection till the date of vacation of the below mentioned quarter and handing over the full vacant possession of the quarter to the CPWD.
4 You are directed to vacate and hand over full vacant possession of the below mentioned quarter to the CPWD under intimation to this Directorate failing which eviction proceedings will be taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971.
5. In case you are aggrieved against this Order, you may prefer an appeal through the proper channel to the Director of Estates- II, within a period of 30 days of the reciept of this order by you or your employer."
PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 10/22 4.3 The appellant was granted an opportunity to prefer an appeal against the above order which he never did and the above order thus attained finality and I find no reasons to not to agree with the above findings of the Inquiry Officer/Inquiry Section of the respondent.
4.4 Though the appellant repeatedly agitated before this court that he had preferred the appeal against order dated 05.09.2016, however, the said stand of the appellant is absolutely false and frivolous. He had never preferred any appeal and it would be safe to conclude that he has not approached the court with clean hands and has tried to mislead the court as well as made false averments on affidavit/oath.
4.5 The only document which the appellant relied upon to prove that he had preferred the appeal against order dated 05.09.2016 is an undated letter which he claims to have written to the Directorate of Estate. The said letter is reproduced hereunder:-
"To The Director of Estates-II, Directorate of Estates, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, Subject:- Appeal against order No. DE/8/6632/SJN/E/2016 dated 05.9.2016.
Madam, I am allottee of Type-III D-612, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. I am, alongwith my family members residing in the PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 11/22 aforesaid Govt. accommodation. During the course of inspection of the quarter, an old lady aged around 85 years who is my relative was found there. Inspecting team asked her about the allottee. He had informed that allottee had gone to office, whereas, her wife had gone to market for purchase of household goods. My son too was also not available at that time.
In view of the position as explained above, I hereby appeal your goodself to re- consider my case sympathetically and take a lenient decision in my favour. The requisite documents are enclosed with the appeal.
Thanking you Yours faithfully, (Ranjeet Singh) Qtr. No. D-612, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi"
4.6 This letter is not only undated but it does not bear the stamp or signature of any official of the respondent which could even remotely prove that the appellant had indeed preferred an appeal against order dated 05.09.2016. In fact the present appeal/pleading is absolutely silent as to how he had sent the said letter/appeal to the respondent i.e. through post, courier or by hand. He did not even bother to mention the date when he had sent the said letter, in the present appeal. A careful reading of the said letter would reveal that the appellant had rather requested the department to take a sympathetic & lenient view in his favour and it was actually not an appeal.
4.7 Though Ld. Counsel for appellant also laid emphasis on the below reproduced lines of the impugned order:-
"You sought some more time to file formal reply in the matter. Your request was allowed and matter adjourned for 29/05/19. You appeared on 29/05/19 and submitted a copy of your PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 12/22 representation dated 29/05/19 addressed to the Director of Estates-II, taken on records and sent to the Department for reply, if so desire...............You appeared on 10/07/19 and informed that the reply of your letter dated 29/05/19 has not been received so far. None appeared from department to submit the reply of your letter dated 29/05/19, this shows that department does not want to file any other document or reply in the matter. Since both the parties submined their reply/documents, matter kept for orders on 10/07/19."
,however, the said order merely takes note of the appellant's submissions and it is by no stretch of imagination a proof of the fact that the appellant had indeed preferred an appeal against order dated 05.09.2016. In fact in the impugned order the Estate Officer only noted the appellant's contention that he has not received reply of his letter dated 29.05.2019. The said letter is reproduced hereunder:-
Dated 29-05-2019 To The Director of Estates-II, Directorate of Estates, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi Sub: Appeal against order No. DE/8/6632/SJN/E/2016 Dated 05-09-2016.
Sir, Kindly refer to your order No. DE/8/6632/SJN/E/2016 Dated 05-09-2016, in this regard, it is to inform you that I have already submitted my reply along with relevant documents (Copy enclosed for ready reference).
It is pertinent to mention that during the course of inspection of my quarter at Type-III D-612, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi an old lady aged around 85 who is my relative was found there, unfortunately I was in office and my family members were gone to market to buy some essential household goods. All my family PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 13/22 members were residing at the said quarters, nothing was subletting as alleged.
Keeping in view of the above, I request your good self to kindly reconsider my case sympathetically and favourably in the interest of natural justice, lenient decision can be taken in my favour at an early date.
I shall be highly obliged for your act of kindness."
4.8 Even in the said letter the appellant talked about submitting of reply along with relevant documents and he failed to give the date when he filed the appeal against order dated 05.09.2016. He did not even enclose the copy of the appeal along with the said letter. In fact the word used by him is "reply" and not "appeal". Nonetheless the Estate Officer did call a report from the Litigation Section/department as to whether the appellant did prefer any appeal and as per the noting dated 22.07.2019 which is reproduced hereunder, no appeal was ever preferred by him:-
" As per file record in this section, no any appeal had been filed by Sh. Ranjeet Singh, allottee before DE-II (In r/o Government Qr. no. D-612, Sarojini Nagar)."
4.9 Hence it stands proved that no appeal was ever preferred by the appellant against order dated 05.09.2016 passed by the Estate officer and the same attained finality.
4.10 Neither any appeal was preferred by him nor did he vacate the premises before 28.06.2017. Hence from 05.09.2016 till 28.06.2017 the appellant remained in unauthorized occupation of the premises.
PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 14/22 4.11 At this stage, it will be pertinent to highlight that in the undated letter which he calls an appeal, the appellant merely claimed that the old lady who was found at the premises, at the time of inspection, was her relative, however, he has miserably failed to explain his relation with the said lady. Neither her name has been mentioned nor her relation with him. If indeed the lady was his relative these were the minimum basic details i.e. her name and their relation that the appellant should have provided to the Estate Officer after the Show cause notice dated 07.04.2016 was issued to him and atleast before the eviction order dated 05.09.2016 was passed against him. Same is the position with letter dated 29.05.2019. Even in the present appeal he has failed to file any document giving details of said lady, explaining their relations nor any identity card or any other document of the said lady has been furnished. There is just nothing on record to connect the said lady with the appellant or to prove their relation.
4.12 No doubt in the reply to the appeal the department has stated that during the inquiry the appellant gave the name of lady as Ramwati and also claimed that she had come from Bulandsahar but that is it. It is/was for the appellant to prove/establish his relation with the said Ramwati and prove the other details in this regard but the appellant miserably failed to do so. In fact it is duly reflected in orders dated 05.09.2016 as under:-
PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 15/22 "Further, it is stated that on day of inspection his wife was gone to market and one Ramwati was present, however, she came from Bulandshahr so did not open the door. The allottee was asked why Ms. Ramwati was present at quarter, this could not be substantiated with any reasons by Sh. Ranjeet Singh. He admitted there is no relation of Ramwti with their family also failed to give any address and addressproof to substantiate claim of presence of Ms. Ramwati at the quarter. The facts gathered by inspection team could not be properly justified by statements and documents given allottee."
4.13 The appellant could not contradict or negate the department/respondent's above stand. Though Ld. Counsel for the appellant relying upon Sunil Dutt (supra) argued that the inspection report which does not bear the signatures of Ramwati or any other independent witness including neighbors/public persons cannot be a proof of subletting, however, I find no merits in the contentions of Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Undoubtedly there is no bar upon friends or family members or relatives in visiting the allottee/government official at the allotted premises, however, it is for the allottee to prove that the person found at the time of inspection was a friend, relative etc. who was merely paying him or her a visit. As discussed above the appellant miserably failed to prove his relation with Smt. Ramwati nor did he furnish any details of Smt. Ramwati i.e. her identity card, permanent address proof etc. Rather he admitted that there was no relation between them. Furthermore the facts in Sunil Dutt (supra)'s were entirety different. In that case the allottee and his family was found at the premises at the time of inspection apart from other family/individuals and the court did not believe the department's contention that two different families, with a large PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 16/22 number of individuals/family members could occupy a small accommodation consisting of just two rooms.
4.14 Last but not the least the question is can there be really any more proof of subletting. The answer is no. In cases of subletting of the present nature there is hardly any rent agreement executed between the allottee and the tenant/sub- tenant. The rent is never taken in cheque/in accounts and it is always taken in cash for the reason being a government servant and it being an allotted premises, neither the same can be let out nor any rent can be received in lieu thereof. No neighbor, independent person is willing to be a witness in any of the government proceedings/cases of the present nature. Furthermore number of people do let out the allotted government accommodations to earn the extra revenue and same would have been the case in the locality where the premises is located. How can anyone expect such individuals, government servant/allotees or their unauthorized occupants/ tenants to support the department, become witness in the proceedings of the present nature. To call for any more proof would really amount to prejudicing the department.
4.15 On the other hand there were number of proofs which the allottee could have furnished before the department to prove that the allotted premises was never sublet and it was he who was occupying the same. They need not be elaborated here but they could have been proof of festival celebrations in the PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 17/22 form of photographs, proof of other celebrations example birthday, anniversary, proof of his belongings lying in the premises etc. This could not have been difficult for the appellant to prove, in case he was indeed residing at the premises. He could have easily examined his immediate neighbour or someone from the locality, before the Estate Officer, to prove that he was actually residing at the premises but for the reasons best known to him he failed to do so. Atleast he could have produced Smt. Ramwati or her documents before the department to establish their relation or to prove that Smt. Ramwati was only visiting him and she was permanent resident of some other place.
4.16 Vide order dated 19.02.2019 the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why order directing him to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 12,31,090/- for the period 11.03.2016 to 28.06.2017 should not be passed against him. He appeared before the Estate Officer on 25.04.2019 and sought time to file reply. On the next date i.e. 29.05.2019 he submitted a copy of letter dated 29.05.2019, as discussed above and no doubt on the next date the department did not file any reply, however, it has already been discussed above that the appellant had never filed any appeal and he was misleading the department the same way as he tried to mislead this court.
4.17 As to on what basis the Estate Officer arrived at the said calculation was duly explained by Ld. Counsel for the respondent. The said calculation is based upon the office PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 18/22 memorandums nos. 18011/2/2006-Pol.III dated 04.06.2013, 22.07.2015 and no. No.18011/1/2015-Pol.III dated 07.09.2016. The department has placed on record the calculation sheet on the basis of which the department assessed the damages to the tune of Rs. 12,31,090/-. The appellant could not show any error or irregularity as regards the above calculation. In fact the impugned order is a detailed, reasoned one wherein the Estate Officer once again made note of the fact that the appellant could not contradict the department's case of subletting. The impugned order is reproduced hereunder:-
"Whereas I, the undersigned, am satisfied that you were in unauthorized occupation of the public premises mentioned in the Schedule below:-
And whereas by a written notice dated 19/02/19 were called upon to show cause notice on 27/03/19, why as order requiring you to pay damages of Rs. 12,31,090/-(Twelve Lakh Thirty One Thousand Ninety only) for the period w.e.f. 26/07/2010 to 28/06/2017 for the unauthorized use and occupation of the Quarter No. D-612, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, should not be made.
And whereas, you did not appear in the proceeding on 27/03/19. You have been allowed another opportunity to appear on 25/04/19, you appeared in the recovery proceeding on 25/04/19 and stated that all the documents against the subletting case has already been submitted before the Deputy Director Subletting during the proceedings. You sought some more time to file formal reply in the matter. Your request was allowed and matter adjourned for 29/05/19. You appeared on 29/05/19 and submitted a copy of your representation dated 29/05/19 addressed to the Director of Estates-II, taken on records and sent to the Department for reply, if so desire. You stated in the above representation that an old lady aged around 85 year old, who was your relative, found during the inspection of the premise in question. You have also requested to reconsider the matter sympathetically in the interest of natural justice. Matter was adjourned for 10/07/19. You appeared on 10/07/19 and informed that the reply of your letter dated 29/05/19 has not been received so far. None appeared from department to submit the reply of your letter dated 29/05/19, this show that PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 19/22 department does not want to file any other document or reply in the matter. Since both the parties submined their reply documents, matter kept for orders on 10/07/19.
I have gone through the record of the case. The premises was allotted to the Shri Ranjeet Singh and subsequently it was cancelled by the Department on subletting ground vide letter dated 05/09/2016, subletting case has already been decided in the department in 2016, after deciding the case of subletting Department has initiated Damages Recovery Case under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Oppupents) Act, 1971 for Recovery of Rs. 12,31,090/-(Twelve Lakh Thirty One Thousand Ninety only) for the period w.ef. 26/07/2010 to 28/06/2017. Hence request of Shri Ranjeet Singh has not been considered for re-examine of subletting case at this stage in the matter. The market rates of Sarojini Nagar Area charged from him by the Directorate of Estates are less then comparatively the market value of the locality. It is situated nearby AIIMS RK Puram which is very costly and VIP Area, hence, the damages rates should be much higher comparatively charged by the Directorate of Estate. You was a Sr. officer in the Government of India and you are well versed with the rules and regulation of allotment of accommodation, you deliberately stayed in the Public Premises after cancellation of allotment made on subletting ground; therefore, you are liable to be penalized. I am of the view that damage charges assessed by the department is liable to be paid by you. No other reply or any document has been placed on the record on your behalf to show that you were not an un-authorised occupation in the Quarter No. D-612, Sarojini Nagar New Delhi during the above period. This shows that you have nothing to say in your defence in the above matter. You have been given sufficient opportunity to prove that you were not an un-authorised occupant in the public premises in question. You failed to prove that you were not in unauthorized occupation of the instant premises. I, therefore, pass the payment order against the Shri Ranjeet Singh for recovery of a sum of Rs.12.31,090/- (Twelve Lakh Thirty One Thousand Ninety only) for the period w.ef 26/07/2010 to 28/06/2017. No order to stay the recovery proceeding is present in the file.
Now, therefore, is exercise of the powers conferred on me by sub-section (2) of Section 7 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, I hereby order you to pay a sum Rs. 12,31,090/- (Twelve Lakh Thirty One Thousand Ninety only) for the period we.f. 26/07/2010 to 28/06/2017 assessed by me as damages on account of your unauthorized occupation of the premises within one month from the date of publication of this order. In the event of your refusal or failure to pay the PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 20/22 damages within the said period, the amount will be recovered as an arrear of Land Revenue through Collector."
4.18 As regards the appellant's contentions that the show cause notices and the impugned order are silent as about the calculation based upon telescopic method and therefore are bad in the eyes of law is concerned, suffice would be to say that being a government servant and that too at a senior post the appellant cannot plead ignorance to the office memorandums, as discussed above, on the basis of which the damages were assessed/calculated. Being a government servant and the rules being duly notified his ignorance about the same is no defence nor is tenable.
4.19 As regards the arguments that the impugned order is contrary to the Rule 8 of the Act as there is no material on record as per sub-section (c) of Rule 8 which was taken into consideration by the Estate Officer while assessing the damages is concerned, suffice would be to say that the damages were assessed as per duly notified office memorandums. This is/was sufficient material before the Estate Officer for assessing the damages. In fact had the premises being let out to a private person, considering its location, accessibility etc. it could have fetched much more rent than what has been assessed by the Estate Officer. Accordingly reliance placed upon Ran Singh Kohar (supra) is misconceived as the determination by the Estate PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 21/22 Officer is not unilateral but based upon duly notified/published office memorandums.
4.20 In view of the above discussion, the appeal stands dismissed.
4.21 File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 28th August 2023 (Gaurav Rao) ADJ-3/ New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
PPA 33/19 Ranjeet Singh Vs. Estate Officer & anr. 22/22