Jarnail Singh vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The issue involved in this Letters Patent Appeal and the two writ petitions is similar. These can be disposed of by a common order.

A few facts as evident from the record of the appeal paper book may be briefly noticed.

Jarnail Singh was in unauthorised possession of an area measuring 64.87 acres of land in the Camping Ground at Gharinda, District Amritsar. He was given a notice by the Estate Officer, Jalandhar Cantt u/s 7(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, calling upon him to show cause as to why he be not held liable to pay damages amounting to Rs. 34,320/- for the period from June 1, 1970 to May 31, 1974. He submitted objections. Vide order dated September 30, 1976, the Estate Officer directed the appellant to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 8,580/- per annum amounting to a total of Rs. 34,320/-. He was permitted to pay these damages in three equal monthly instalments of Rs. 11,440/- commencing from October 30, 1976. Aggrieved by this order Jarnail Singh filed an appeal before the District Judge u/s 9 of the Act. The learned District Judge held that the appellant was liable to pay damages only for a period of three years prior to the date when proceedings u/s 7(2) of the Act had been initiated. The claim for the remaining period was held to be barred by limitation.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, the Union of India approached this court through Civil Writ Petition No. 1988 of 1978. It was urged that the learned District Judge had erred in holding that the damages could not have been claimed for a period beyond three years. This matter was considered by the learned Single Judge. It was held that the damages could be claimed for a period of 30 years prior to the date of initiation of proceedings u/s 7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Jarnail Singh has filed the present letters patent appeal.

The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of the appointment of the Estate Officer was not in conformity with the provisions of the Rules of Business promulgated by the President under Article 77 of the Constitution. Learned counsel has contended that there being no proper conferment of powers on the Estate Officer by the concerned Minister, his action in proceeding against the appellant was wholly illegal. It has also been submitted that the courts below have erred in awarding damages at the rate of Rs. 8,580/- per annum. A half hearted contention with regard to the admissibility of interest was also raised.

The first question that arises for consideration is - was appointment of the Estate Officer in violation of law? Mr. Aggarwal contends that the appointment was violative of the Rules of Business. However, learned counsel is unable to refer to any specific provision in the rules which may have been violated. What was the specific provision? How was it violated? In the absence of a specific plea with reference to any particular rule, it is impossible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the contention is rejected.

It was then contended that the courts have erred in upholding the claim of the Union of India for the award of damages at the rate of Rs. 8,580/- per annum. Even this contention is wholly misconceived. It is the admitted position that the appellant was in possession of more than 64 acres of land. The damages have been awarded only at the rate of Rs. 8,580/-. The amount is less than Rs. 150/- per acre. If at all, it is the Union of India which could have felt aggrieved and not the appellant.

It is lastly contended that till the year 1980 there was no provision under the Act for charging of the interest. Consequently while assessing damages, the appellant could not have been burdened with interest. This contention has not been raised in the letters patent appeal. However, a specific plea in this behalf has been raised in Civil Writ Petition No. 10854 of 1988. The averments in paragraph 11 of the writ petition have been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been pointed out that Section 7(2-A) of the Act was incorporated vide Act 60 of 1980. Resultantly, interest has been worked out only with effect from December 22, 1980, and not for the period prior thereto. This factual position has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any replication. In this view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, there is no merit in either the letters patent appeal or the writ petitions. These are consequently dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.