MANOHARLAL RADHAKRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on behalf of the firm known as Manoharlal Radhakrishna, agents of Burmah Shell Oil and Storage Company of India Limited, through Radhakrishna Tekriwal, the plaintiff, is directed against the judgment and the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge passed in Money suit No. 59 of 1960, under which Dart decree for Rs. 1556/- only was allowed to the plaintiff as against his claim of Rs. 16,392/-. In the suit. Union of India, representing the North Eastern Railway, General Manager, Chief Engineer of the said Railway at Gorakhpur, and the District Engineer, Katihar, were impleaded as defendants 1 to 4.

(2.) The plaintiff's case, in brief was that the firm Manoharlal Radhakrishna was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and was dealing in Eurmah Shell products as agent of the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the said company') having its office at Saharsa. Radhakrishna Tekriwal was the managing Partner of the firm, who applied for lease for a piece of land measuring 120' x 120' in the North Eastern Railway compound of Saharsa Railway Station for constructing and maintaining thereon a petrol pump and installation of H.S.D. filling station. As required by the Regional Superintendent, Muzaffarpur, District Engineer. Mansi prepared plan No. L/31/57 on the basis of the drawing No. C 12397/1, submitted by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid plan was duly approved and counter-signed by the District Engineer. North Eastern Railway, (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as D.E. No.) and the Regional Superintendent Muzaffarpur, and the District Commercial Superintendent, Sonepur, (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as D. C.S.). Copy of the plan, which was given to the plaintiff, was annexed with the plaint as Annexure 1. The plaintiffs further case was that the Regional Superintendent. Muzaffarpur, wrote to the D.C.S. Sonepur under letter No. C/267/11 SHC dated 27-12-1957 approving the grant of the lease to the plaintiff and allotting the land, referred to above, to him, as per plan No. L/31/57 and to get the agreement executed by the plaintiff after realising ground rent from him in advance. The D. C. S in his turn informed the Plaintiff by his letter dated 28-12-1957 regarding the said sanction and approval of the Regional Superintendent, The plaintiff was also informed that the form of agreement was not available in his office at that time. The plaintiff's representative was directed to contact D. E. No. for execution of the agreement and for fixation of the ground rent. The D. E. No referred the matter to the District Magistrate, Saharsa, to ascertain as to what was the market value of the land to be leased to the plaintiff to enable the Department to fix the rent. The District Magistrate informed D. E. N. about the market value. On 13-7-1958 the plaintiff requested D. E. N. to hand over the plot in question pending execution of the agreement. According (sic) to accept and approve the lease by his letter dated 30-7-1958 and for getting the agreement executed after realisation of one year's rent in advance from the plaintiff and he also directed for handing over, the land to the plaintiff Accordingly, D. E. N. realised rent of Rs. 1556/- being the rent for one year and four months from 1-9-1958 to 31-12-1959. The Chief Engineer had informed that the plan for structure should also be certified by the Inspector of Explosive Calcutta which was also complied. The plaintiff duly executed the agreement on 1-9-1958, as required and sent it to D. E. N. Manshi However, the Chief Engineer wanted the plan to be submitted on tracing cloth and he had written to the District Engineer that the plaintiff might be asked to proceed and go ahead with the work, if D. E. N. had no objection The D. E N. raised no objection and the plaintiff was asked to So ahead with the construction. The plaintiff thereafter filled the ditch, which the land contained, with earth and after levelling the same raised boundary pillars, constructed two culverts and two gates, for which he had to incur large sum of money, the details of which are given in the schedule of the plaint. On 28-10-1959 the plaintiff received a letter from the Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur, addressed to the D. E. N. disallowing the installation of the octroi pump, to which the plaintiff sent a reply, but the Chief Engineer, however, cancelled the lease of the plaintiff on 25-11-1959. According to the plaintiff, cancellation of the lease was unjust and improper and the defendants were liable to pay Rs. 16,392/- to the plaintiff towards various item of expenditure incurred by the plaintiff, including the damage, as detailed in the schedule of the plaint.

(3.) One written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No. 1. Union of India, representing the North Eastern Railway, and the suit was contested by defendant No. 1 alone, whose case was that one K. P. Verma, Agent of Burmah Shell, had applied for a piece of land measuring 120' x 120' in the Saharsa Railway Station compound for the pur-Pose of H. S. D. petrol filling station. The Chief Engineer approved the grant of licence and had ordered the handing over of the land in question only on execution of the agreement and payment of rent in advance. The agreement was not executed by the General Manager, who was the competent authority on behalf of defendant No. 1. In the absence of such an execution the defendant was not liable for any expenses, which might have incurred by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the installation of petrol pump for retail sale was not permitted as the Railway had never made such settlement anywhere, to avoid accident. No doubt the agreement, could have been made with regard to the storage of petrol pump and installation of filling up station, if it was executed by a competent authority on behalf of the Union of India. The Chief Engineer was not competent to sanction such a lease permitting construction of a petrol pump. The irregularity was detected only when the structure plan was supplied by the plaintiff on the tracing cloth. It was also pleaded that there was no valid lease and, therefore, the question of cancellation of the lease did not arise. There was simply an application for some land on behalf of the plaintiff for some specific purpose. The negotiations were going on for the same, which ultimately failed. Even the plan was not approved and sanctioned by the Chief Engineer or any officer competent to do so. It was further pleaded that defendants 2, 3 and 4 were not necessary parties to the suit.