BANJARI AYYANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. is for quashing the order of demand of damages/market rent raised by the respondents vide their letters dt. 6.9.2002 and 16.9.2002.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the applicant was allotted Quarter No. 4712/129-A at Antop Hill, CGS Colony (in short, Quarter No. 129/4712) in the year 1987. The applicant was occupying the same. Subsequently, this quarter was exchanged with Quarter No. 6/81/A/ S.M. Plot (in short, Quarter No. 6/81) in December, 1991. The applicant came to occupy Quarter No. 6/81 on 5.12.1991. According to the applicant, he vacated the earlier Quarter No. 129/4712. However, according to respondents No. 1 & 2, the earlier Quarter was not vacated by the applicant. Consequently, after taking action under the Public Premises Act applicant was physically evicted from Quarter No. 129/4712 on 24.4.1998. From the facts which are revealed in the pleadings, it appears that thereafter the respondents took no action and on 2.7.2002 (Annexure R-1) issued a notice to the applicant that as the applicant had not given vacant possession of the previous Quarter and had not handed over the same to the CPWD in time, the allotment automatically stands cancelled w.e.f. 5.12.1991. Exhibit R-l further states that as the applicant was in occupation of two quarters a seven days show cause notice was given as to why the allotment of the newly allotted quarter be not cancelled. As per the O. A., this notice was not received by the applicant, hence no reply was given. The respondents, however, issued another order on 12.7.2002 that the Quarter No. 6/81 shall also be deemed to have been cancelled w.e.f. 5.12.1991. Therefore, the applicant has been made liable to pay damages at market rate for both the quarters w.e.f. 5.12.1991 to the date of vacation of both the quarters. The applicant vacated Quarter No. 6/81 in April, 2002. After realising the pending dues, the vacant possession of the said Quarter No. 6/81 was taken over on 19.4.2002. The applicant retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.2002. The respondents No. 1 and 2 wrote to respondent No. 3 for realising the arrears of Licence Fee due to occupation of Quarter No. 129/4712 and Quarter No. 6/ 81 by the applicant as per communication dt. 16.7.2002 "Exhibit-A". An amount of Rs. 1,27,440 was due against Quarter No. 129/4712 and an amount of Rs. 3,09,555 was found outstanding against Quarter No. 6/81. Thus, the total outstanding amount against the applicant was found Rs. 4,36,995, less Rs. 2131 which has already deducted as per schedule dt. 5/02. Thus, an amount of Rs. 4,34,864 was to be adjusted from the retiral benefits of the applicant. The details of the recovery in respect of the two quarters has been annexed as "Exhibit-A". The respondent No. 3 informed the respondent No. 1 about the details of the terminal benefit likely to be paid to the applicant on his retirement on 31.7.2002. It is as below:

(3.) IT is also noted that as per their own case, the respondents No. 1 & 2 had initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act in 1997 with respect to Quarter No. 129/4712 and the applicant was evicted from the said premises on 24.4.1998. If this assertion of the respondents is accepted, then for arrears of rent from 1991 till the date of eviction from Quarter No. 129/4712 was the subject matter under the Public Premises Act and the amount should have been realised as per the orders passed in that proceedings. Copies of any such proceedings has not been filed in this case. So it is not known what order was actually, if any, was passed by the appropriate authority under the Public Premises Act. There is no explanation from the side of the respondents for not making realisation of arrears of rent/damages with respect to Quarter No. 129/4712 after the proceedings under the Public Premises Act. The respondents kept quiet even thereafter and it was only in July, 2002 i.e., in the month the applicant was to retire, a notice was sent to the applicant. The astonishing feature of this notice is that though the applicant was, as per the respondents own case, physically evicted on 24.4.1998 from Quarter No. 129/4712, the notice issued in July, 2002 states that allotment of Quarter No. 129/4712 stands automatically cancelled w.e.f. 5.12.1991, on the ground that the vacant possession of the said Quarter was not handed over by the applicant to CPWD 'in time'. If actually any proceedings under Public Premises Act had been initiated the above was the subject matter of such proceedings and the applicant was evicted from the Quarter on 24.4.1998. So question of issue of the notice dt. 22.7.2002 and to cancel the allotment of Quarter No. 129/4712 w.e.f. 5.12.1991, does not stand to reason.