Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 294 (PNJ)

SAT PAUL v. CHANDIGARH ADMN.

2014-02-06

RITU BAHRI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, J. The present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant compensation of Rs. 5 lacs to each of the petitioner on account of death of their respective sons, died in pond due to callous attitude of the respondents in not filling the same. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is working as Labourer and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are working as Sweepers (Class IV) in the M.C. Chandigarh. 3. The particulars of the sons of petitioners are as under:- Name and son of Date of Birth Date of Death Class in which they were studying Ajay s/o Sat Paul 01/05/89 28.8.2002 8th Vijay Masin s/o Faquir Chand 13.8.1985 28.8.2002 8th Vijay Kumar s/o Naresh Kumar 23.6.1987 28.8.2002 8th 4. The above said boys were residents of Indira Colony, Mani Manjra, U.T. Chandigarh. On 27.08.2002, they were seen together and did not return to their respective homes and consequently, the petitioners lodged a complaint with the police station, Mani Manjra. On 28.08.2002, their dead bodies were found from the pond. 5. The matter was reported in the various newspapers, on the next day. One such news item appeared in "Chandigarh Newsline" dated 29.08.2002 is Annexure P-2. 6. Representations were made to the Advisor to the Administrator dated 11.11.2002 for the grant of compensation on account of death of respective sons of the petitioners (P-3 to P-5). The representations of the petitioners were recommended by the Sr. Deputy Mayor of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, but however, till date no compensation had been granted to the petitioners. 7. On notice, a reply has been filed by the respondents and in the preliminary objections, it is being denied that the death of sons of the petitioners was on account of the drowning. This fact does not find mentioned in the DDR dated 28.08.2002, police report dated 09.09.2002 (P-1), in the representations of the petitioners (P-3 to P-5) and even in the news item dated 28.08.2002 (P-2). 8. The short point for consideration before this Court is that whether the said incident had taken place on private land in between Chandigarh Kalka Railway line and the boundary of I.T. Park. 9. 8. The short point for consideration before this Court is that whether the said incident had taken place on private land in between Chandigarh Kalka Railway line and the boundary of I.T. Park. 9. As per the site plan (R-2), there are disputed question of facts involved in the writ petition which cannot be gone in to while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. 10. The allegations of the petitioners that the earth was taken out from the said place where the incident had take place, by the Engineering Department of Chandigarh Administration for the construction of the road connecting Manimajra to Sector 26 was baseless as the possession of the land itself for the construction of the said road was taken on 09.12.2002 whereas the death of the wards of the petitioners had taken place on 27/28.08.2002. There was no occasion with the administration to dug out the earth from the said pond for construction of the road. Even the allegation that some earth had been taken out from this pond which was used for construction work of 220 KV Sub Station, Manimajra, is denied by the respondents in their reply a work at this sub station was undertaken by the Power Grid Corporation from 2001 to November, 2002 and for this purpose, levelling was brought from Sukhna Lake and not from the alleged place as there was abundant earth lying near the Sukhna Lake. 11. A short reply has also been filed by respondent No. 2 stating therein that the unfortunate incident took place does not belong to M.C and it has nothing to do with this land. M.C is not bound to maintain this land and thus are not liable to pay any compensation on account of unfortunate death of the sons of the petitioners. 12. Petitioners have filed a replication to the written statement filed by respondent No. 1. Petitioners have annexed Annexure P-6 to P- 8 to show that the land where the incident had taken placed belongs to Chandigarh Administration as per photograph, half of the land has been included in the I.T Park and half of the pond is inside the boundary wall and the other half is outside the boundary wall. 13. Petitioners have annexed Annexure P-6 to P- 8 to show that the land where the incident had taken placed belongs to Chandigarh Administration as per photograph, half of the land has been included in the I.T Park and half of the pond is inside the boundary wall and the other half is outside the boundary wall. 13. In response to the replication filed by the petitioners, an affidavit dated 02.07.2005 has been filed by the Executive Engineer, CP Divn. No.2(Roads) Engineering Department, U.T. Chandigarh wherein it has been submitted that the deponent has obtained the necessary revenue record from the office of land Acquisition Officer, U.T Chandigarh. As per the copy of the 'Shajra' of Manimajra U.T. Chandigarh supplied by the said department, the Blue colour shown in a circle is a low lying area from where also the water flows towards the existing water way. The entire land where the water has been accumulated or the water ways is existing falls on the land of U.T as well of Railways (A-3 and A-4). 14. The respondents-U.T Administration, Chandigarh has finally admitted in affidavit dated 02.07.2005 that the low lying area where the pond was situated belongs to U.T Chandigarh as well as Railways. After going through the shajra (A-3), the red marked area is the land of the railways and the major part of the low lying area where water is accumulated belongs to U.T and the photocopy attached with the replication filed by the petitioners showing that half of the land has been included in the I.T Park and half of the pond is inside the boundary wall and the other half is outside the boundary wall, is also found to be true. The boundary of the I.T Park has been shown with the green colour. Thus, it was the responsibility of the U.T Administration to maintain the low lying area. 15. Another fact which requires consideration that in the written statement earlier filed by respondent No. 1 on 03.11.2003 was factually incorrect as in that written statement, it was stated that low lying area where the children had died, is a private land. This written statement was palpably false as per the affidavit dated 02.07.2005 which has now been given by Executive Engineer, CP Divn. No. 2(Roads) Engineering Department, U.T. Chandigarh. 16. This written statement was palpably false as per the affidavit dated 02.07.2005 which has now been given by Executive Engineer, CP Divn. No. 2(Roads) Engineering Department, U.T. Chandigarh. 16. Compensation has been granted in similar circumstances by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments i.e Kumari Seema alias Seema v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, 1994(3) RRR 235 and Balram v. HVPNL, 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 159. 17. In view of the above, the petitioners are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 7 lacs to each petitioner for loss of their sons along with interest @ 7.5 percent per annum from the date of filing of this petition, till the date of realisation. 18. Accordingly, petition is allowed qua U.T. Administration.