UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEVI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil first appeal is directed against the decision dated October 31, 1970, of the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu, decreeing the plaintiff -respondents suit No. 5 of 1966 for Rs. 12,923/ - claimed as damages for demolition of his building and removal of the doors, window frames, shutters, battons and beams therefrom.

(2.) IT appears that the plaintiff -respondent brought the aforesaid suit on January 7, 1966, with the allegations that he was the owner of a garden, well and a building consisting of six rooms, out houses and cattle shed standing on Khasra No. 599 measuring 19 Marlas in village Nagrota, Tehsil Jammu, that the appellants Army took possession of the aforesaid property in 1951 without his consent or knowledge, that the illegal possession of the Army was regularised under Cabinet Order No. 222 -C of 1955 dated March 11, 1955, passed under Section 32 -A of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Security Act, 2003 (Samvat), that being out of station on official duty at various places he did know as to what ex -parte decision was made regarding compensation, that he was never allowed by the Army to enter the premises on security grounds, that he received letter No. 609 dated December 20, 1962 from the O.C. 84, Infantry Workshop Coy. E.M.E. asking him to repair the building or to demolish the same, that on receipt of this letter in January 1963, he came to know that the Army had used the aforesaid building carelessly and had practically demolished the same and removed the doors, windows frames, shutters, battons, beams etc. leaving only the walls on the spot, that he made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, complaining about the matter, that on inquiry into the matter, the Deputy Commissioner found that the Army had taken illegal possession of the plaintiffs garden, well and building in 1951 and had continued to use the same since then, that specific mention of the well, garden and building was not made in the aforesaid requisition order, and that the Army had caused a loss to the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 12,923/ - by demolishing his building, that the Deputy Commissioner called upon the Army authorities to pay the aforesaid compensation but as the latter had unduly delayed the matter and not made payment of the compensation assessed by the Deputy Commissioner; hence the suit. The appellant filed a written statement raising various contentions. O.P.P. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1. Is Shrimati Malu a necessary party to the suit? O.P.D. 2. Is the suit barred by time? O.P.D.

(3.) IS the plaint vague; if so with what effect on the suit O.P.D.