Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1572 (JHR)

Jawahar Prasad v. Steel Authority India Ltd.

2012-11-01

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.2.2007 passed in Misc. Appeal No.36/2006 by the District Judge, Bokaro whereby order dated 4th July,2006 passed by the learned Estate Officer Bokaro Steel City in A/E Case No.118/2004 has been affirmed. 3. By the original order issued under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 dated 7.2.2005 , the petitioner was declared to be an unauthorized occupant in respect of quarter No. VIII-C/E/2320, Bokaro Steel City and on account of that damages of Rs. 1,008/-towards electricity and other charges per month w.e.f. 7.5.2004 till vacation/eviction of the said quarter and simple interest thereon @ 10% per annum was levied till its final payment. 4. The petitioner assailed the original order in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7/2005 on two grounds that the notice under Section 4 (1) and 7(3) of the Act of 1971 was not properly served upon him and he was denied opportunity to show cause before the original order was passed by the Estate Officer. The second ground of assailing the impugned order was that the assessment and damages have not been done according to the Public Premises Act. However, the learned court of Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-IIIrd, Bokaro by judgment dated 20.05.2006 dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Estate Officer. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is an employee of B.S.L. and he was allotted quarter, in question. However, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet on 26.2.2003 alleging that he had obtained his employment on the basis of a false and fabricated certificate. The petitioner challenged the said charge sheet in Title Suit No. 36/2003. However, during the pendency of said Title Suit, there was no injunction granted and the respondents after conclusion of the departmental enquiry passed the order of dismissal on 7.4.2004. The impugned proceedings under the Act of 1971 in respect of the quarter were initiated before the court of Estate Officer and the original order dated 7.2.2005 was passed in the manner indicated hereinabove. The appeal against the same has also been dismissed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to provide evidence showing the quantum of damages as per Rule 8 of the Act. The appeal against the same has also been dismissed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to provide evidence showing the quantum of damages as per Rule 8 of the Act. Earlier from the proceedings of the case, the petitioner informed the court that he had vacated the quarter in question as per the undertaking given before this Court by filing a supplementary affidavit. The petitioner, therefore, sought to confine his prayer to challenge the damages levelled against him and upheld by the appellate court. 6. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit supporting the impugned order. It was submitted that once the petitioner was dismissed from service, he became an unauthorized occupant and, thereafter, on initiation of proceeding for eviction before the competing court under the Act of 1971, notices were issued but he failed to show cause and, thereafter, the order of eviction was passed. It is further submitted that the learned appellate court has taken into account both the contentions alleged by the petitioner and refused to interfere with the original order on the ground of assessment of damages. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the findings recorded at paragraph 9 of the appellate order, in which the learned appellate court had also taken the ground of objection made by the petitioner/appellant and on being satisfied with the statement and submissions made by the respondent-employer, upheld the award of damages. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as the materials on record. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 provides for procedure by which assessment of damages is to be made in an eviction proceeding initiated under the Parent Act. The law stipulates that in an unauthorized public premises, the Estate Officer shall take into consideration the following matters, namely, (A) the purpose and the period by which the public premises were in unauthorized occupation; (B) the nature, size and accommodation available in such premises; (C) rent that would be realized, if the premises has been let out on rent for the period of unauthorized corruption to a private person; (D) any damages done to to the premises during the period of unauthorized occupation and (E) any other mattes relevant for the purpose of assessing damages. 8. 8. It, therefore appears that while assessing the damage the physical inspection of the premises in unauthorized occupation is not the sole factor which requires to be taken while awarding the damages. The other factor, which is enumerated hereinabove, can also be taken into consideration while assessing the damages. 9. From perusal of the impugned appellate order, it appears that the learned appellate court has applied its mind to the aforesaid issues after taking into consideration the submissions of the rival parties and held that the Estate Officer has considered the issues relating to purpose of allotment, nature and size of accommodation and rent to be realized from a private person while passing the order of payment of damages at Rs.1008/-per month plus electricity and other charges. While coming to such inference, the learned court has also considered that the Estate Officer had taken into consideration the instruction and guidelines made in the rule while assessing the damages. The petitioner has, however, not been able to show any illegality in the aforesaid findings of fact by any cogent material, which has been brought on record in the present writ petition. 10. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact, which have been recorded by two courts below. Even otherwise, it appears that for assessment of damages in respect of the quarter in a city like Bokaro, where accommodation is scarce and the facts, which have been taken into consideration for assessment of damages, do warrant imposition in the amount of Rs.1008/-per month as damages for unauthorized occupation of the said quarter. However, the rate of interest appears to be on the higher side @ 10% simple interest per month. 11. In these circumstances, without interfering with the quantum of damages, the rate of interest levied by the original order and upheld by the appellate order, is modified to be levied @ 5% simple interest per month. 12. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned order.