RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice to show cause dated 17th December, 2007 was issued by the DDA to the appellant herein as to why damages of `6,25,71,881/- be not imposed upon it for unauthorized use and occupation of commercial premises measuring 22 bighas and 10 biswas in Village - Barwala, Delhi for the period from 6th October, 2005 to 31st December, 2006. The appellant disputed the liability. However, order under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "PP Act") was passed by the Estate Officer imposing the aforesaid damages. The appellant filed appeal there against questioning the liability on various grounds. This appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 15th November, 2010. Thereafter, appellant preferred writ petition assailing the order of the appellate authority. In this writ petition mainly three grounds were raised by the appellant, namely :

(2.) THE learned Single Judge has accepted the contention of the appellant that there was no positive evidence led by the DDA to establish the quantum of damages. On this ground, the orders of the authorities below have been set aside and matter is remanded back to the Estate Officer for a prompt decision afresh after the respondent is permitted to lead the evidence. Because of this reason first ground of delay also does not survive. However, insofar as the question of liability of appellant is concerned, the learned Single Judge has held that the liability to pay the damages, which would be determined, would be that of the appellant. It is this part of the order which is not palatable to the appellant and, therefore, present appeal is preferred on this limited aspect.

(3.) CONSISTENT stand of the appellant, questioning its liability to pay the damages, has been that it is the VTC who was to provide the stockyard at Delhi in terms of agreement entered into between VTC and the appellant and, therefore, the liability if any is that of VTC. It was argued that in September, 2005 VTC had informed the appellant that the land in question had been sealed by the DDA and the material of the appellant had been stored therein. It was also argued that it is VTC who requested the DDA to grant time and, therefore, there was no liability of the appellant.