D C M LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings for eviction of petitioner and for recovery of damages initiated by the Land Management Committee, Dasna, district Ghaziabad, respondent No. 3 under Section 122B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Area of the land in dispute is 1 bigha 8 biswa equivalent to 4238 square yards. The allegation is that petitioner since 1964 is in occupation of the land in dispute which belongs to Gaon Sabha. The land in dispute is part of petitioner's factory which is constructed over large area and area in dispute is part thereof. The land in dispute is comprised in two plots being plot No. 1894 area 10 biswa and 1895 area 18 biswa. In the revenue records, the said plots are entered as rasta and nala. Petitioner's factory within the compound of which land in dispute also lies is known by the name of Hindan River Mill Dasna. It is stated in the writ petition that about 2,000 workers were there in the factory when writ petition was filed in 1986. The requisite notice before start of proceedings was given on 12.4.1983. In the said notice, it was mentioned that possession of petitioner was since 1372 fasli, i.e., 1.7.1964 to 30.6.1965. Damages of Rs. 21,190 (@ Rs. 5 per square yard) were also proposed to be imposed. The matter was thereafter registered before Tehsildar, Ghaziabad as case No. 214. Tehsildar passed a very reasonable interim order on 13.1.1984. The Tehsildar after noting the position of factory and land in dispute as mentioned in the map held that even if land was got vacated, public would not be able to use the same (i.e., neither it could be utilised as rasta nor as nala). Tehsildar directed that in between petitioner and Gaon Sabha a reasonable compensation for the land in dispute should be determined and on payment of the said compensation the land be settled by the Land Management Committee in favour of the petitioner. The case was adjourned till 14.4.1984 to enable the parties to arrive at compromise regarding compensation. Against that order both the parties filed revisions which were dismissed by D. M., Ghaziabad on 15.1.1986 as not maintainable on the ground that they were directed against interim order. Thereafter, Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Ghaziabad decided the matter on 30.4.1986. Tehsildar passed the order of eviction and imposed damages @ Rs. 5 per square yard, amounting to Rs. 21,190. Against the said order petitioner filed revision being Revision No. 189. Collector, Ghaziabad dismissed the revision on 20.8.1986 hence this writ petition.

(3.) I have held in Bhudaee v. Collector, 2005 (98) RD 741, that if someone is in unauthorised occupation over a small piece of land of Gaon Sabha since long and has constructed his house then instead of eviction proper relief is to award damages. In the said authority, I have also held that if possession is since late seventies or early eighties then proper measure of damages is Rs. 100 per square yard as it was approximate market value of the abadi land at that time in the villages of U. P. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the above principle can be applied to the instant case also. The possession is since 1964 ; the land was not situated in any abadi area ; even for 20 years possession, damages claimed were Rs. 5 per square yard. In view of this, it appears that in 1964 the market value of the land in dispute was hardly Rs. 10 per square yard. Accordingly, in my opinion interest of justice will best be served by directing the petitioner to pay damages @ Rs. 300 per square yard in lieu of settlement of the land in dispute with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for the payment of the aforesaid compensation after slight hesitation. The argument of learned counsel was that damages might be reduced a bit. However, I do not see any reason to reduce the damages.