GIAN SINGH Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 awarded is nominal. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.