GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. SATPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge-2, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned 'Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.353/2015 whereby the suit filed by respondents for recovery of Rs.4.00 lacs was decreed to the extent of Rs.3.00 lacs in favour of respondents. The appellant is aggrieved of the decree for Rs.3.00 lacs and also of the directions given to the department to hold an enquiry relating the act and conduct of officers including appellant No.2/defendant No.2 and also initiate appropriate legal action by filing of FIR etc.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are the respondents had an agricultural land viz. Khasra Nos.30/21 (1-12), 30/19/1 (0-16), 30/20/2 (0-8), 30/22 (3-19), 30/23/1 (2-6) and 31/16/2 (0-4) situated in the revenue estate of village Jharoda, Majra Burari, Delhi. They got a permission to enclose/fence their land from the then SDM vide order dated 31.12.1993 passed in SDM (KWC)/93/2404 and to construct a boundary wall upto the height of 4 feet, which they constructed in the month of May, 1994. The construction of boundary wall allegedly was not against any provision of law nor any objection was ever raised by revenue department or anyone else within the meaning of building byelaws.

(3.) However, on 24.07.2010, the defendant No.2/appellant No.2 without giving any show cause notice or demolition notice, demolished the boundary wall towards the Northern and Eastern side which action of defendants was illegal as the wall was in existence since last more than 16 years and while demolishing the appellants had also demolished a cattle shed and an iron gate which had caused substantial financial loss, mental disturbance and agony and hence the respondents served upon the appellants a notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code on 03.08.2010; duly replied by defendant No.2/appellant No.2 vide reply dated 15.10.2010 but the appellants failed to make payment of any compensation.