ORDER : Ashok Panda, Judicial Member - The petitioner named above (herein after referred to as contractor) has filed this reference petition under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short the Adhiniyam, 1983) for an award of Rs. 10 Lacs on different heads as mentioned in the petition. Initially, the petitioner had claimed for an award of Rs. 26,55,24,815/- but, later by incorporating amendment in the petition, he has restricted his claim to Rs. 10 Lacs only. 2. Pursuant to an agreement No. 16/DL/2008-09 vide (Article 'A') entered into and executed between the contractor and respondent No. 2 for construction of Dulna Diversion weir in Mahanadi river by constructing concrete weir with diaphragm walls minimum 0.60 M depth in hard rock wings protection works, providing and fixing of 77 Nos. vertical lifting gates, along with construction of R.C.C. barrel 600 M length with canal head regulator, afflux and guide bunds on both sides of river banks and other appurtenant, a work order Ex.-P3 was awarded to the contractor, accepted rate of contract was 61.45 Crores, work order was no. 1189 (Eix.-P3) was issued on 27/02/2009, stipulated period for completion of work was 30 months including rainy season, the work was completed on 09/03/2013 by extending the stipulated period twice at the request of the contractor are not substantially disputed by the parties. 3. Facts of the case as set out by the petitioner in the petition are that, the contractor had deployed man power and machinery immediately after receiving of the work order at the site. The work was delayed on account of obstruction created by the owners of the land, for the reason that, the acquisition of private lands was not completed and the owners of the lands were not given compensation in respect of their acquired lands. Since, the free site was not provided to the contractor by the department, the department realizing difficulties arose and considering the fact situation had extended the time schedule without imposing any penalty upon petitioner. The cause of delay was purely attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner however, completed the work by 09/03/2013 and had received the bill amount of Rs. 61.45 Crores on 09/03/2013. 4. It is further pleaded that, the contractor was compelled to use much more amount of cement as against the amount of cement mentioned in the drawing, design and agreement. The cause of delay was purely attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner however, completed the work by 09/03/2013 and had received the bill amount of Rs. 61.45 Crores on 09/03/2013. 4. It is further pleaded that, the contractor was compelled to use much more amount of cement as against the amount of cement mentioned in the drawing, design and agreement. Resultantly, claimant consumed 4 Lacs bags of cement in addition to required quantum of cement as per job mix formulae. Thereby, the contractor spent Rs. 10 Crores on use of additional quantity of cement. Further the petitioner has averred that, since the stipulated period was 30 months, however, the work continued for a period of 49 months on account of delay caused by the department. The petitioner suffered loss of profit amounting to Rs. 3,89,18,317/- and he is also entitled for overheads expenditure at the rate of 10% amounting to Rs. 3,89,18,317/-. The petitioner has also claimed Rs. 3,89,18,317/- on the score expenditure incurred by him on rent of machines and equipments deployed by him at the work site. The petitioner has also claimed Rs. 4,87,69,864/- as interest at the rate of 18%. 5. The respondents have resisted the claims of the petitioner by filing their written statement controverting the averments of the petition on material particulars. They have stated that, there were some obstructions over a small piece of land which was resolved by the officers and the entire land was made available to the petitioner. It is further stated that, the petitioner has not filed any document so as to substantiate the claims that an expenditure of Rs. 10 Crores incurred on extra amount of cement. The entire claim is based on hypothetical grounds and therefore, the claim has been reduced for Rs. 10 Lacs only. The claim being fictitious it is reduced to Rs. 10 Lacs on the pretext of inability to bear the requisite court fees. 6. Both the parties have filed documentary and oral evidence in order to substantiate their respective claims. 7. We have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the contractor was forced to use the cement more than the approved job mix formulae. The contractor was asked to execute the concreting work by using 250 kg./cm2 in place of 100 kg./cm2. 7. We have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the contractor was forced to use the cement more than the approved job mix formulae. The contractor was asked to execute the concreting work by using 250 kg./cm2 in place of 100 kg./cm2. Thereby, the petitioner had to use 4 Lacs bags of cement in addition to the required bags of cement. Since, the instructions given by the Site Engineer was not in consonance with the specification given in the tender, it is therefore, the department is liable to pay the cost of extra cement. He further argued that, since the free land was not provided to the contractor to execute the work, as the land acquisition proceedings were not completed and therefore, the owners of land had obstructed the construction work. The work could not complete within the stipulated period and the work stretched out for a considerable long period, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the loss of profit, overhead expenses and the rent of the charges of machines and equipments at the rate of 10% and interest thereon as set out in the petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that, the entire claim is based on purely hypothetical grounds which is evident from the fact that, the claimant has reduced its claim from Rs. 26,55,24,815/- to Rs. 10 Lacs only. There is not an iota of evidence to substantiate the claims. 10. Following point for determination emerged for consideration :- Whether, the claimant is entitled for an award, if yes then up to what extent ? Claim No. 2, 3 and 4 : 11. Initially the petitioner had made a claim for Rs. 3,89,18,317/- on each three claims. But, after presentation of the petition the petitioner reduced his claim to Rs. 2.5 Lacs with regard to claim No. 2 and reduced to Rs. 2 Lacs on claim No. 3 and reduced to Rs. 2 Lacs with regard to claim No. 4 by relinquishing remaining part of the claim amount of Rs. 3,89,18,317 on claim No. 2, 3 and 4. The main ground for claiming the award is that the stipulated period for execution of work was 30 months but, on account of delay, purely attributable to the respondents, the work prolonged for a period of 49 months. 3,89,18,317 on claim No. 2, 3 and 4. The main ground for claiming the award is that the stipulated period for execution of work was 30 months but, on account of delay, purely attributable to the respondents, the work prolonged for a period of 49 months. Thus, there was a delay of 19 months in execution of work, for which the petitioner was not at fault. The cause of delay was that, the department had not acquired the land before issuing work order and therefore, the execution of work could not be completed within the stipulated period. The owners of lands whose land were affected, obstructed the work on account of non-payment of compensation to them. 12. The petitioner has not come up with a stand that, entire land or work site was not made available to him. On the contrary upon perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner which are Ex.-P6, Ex.-P13, Ex.-P15, Ex.-P 16, Ex.-P21 and Ex.-P24 reveal that, only the land where right and left bund was to be constructed, the owners of the land had raised objection. Ex.-P 16 shows that land for construction of right bund was made available to the petitioner but, he could not execute the work on account of rains and the land was not approachable due to rain. Thus, it is not a case that, entire land was not provided to the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that, the stipulated period was extended by the respondents at the request made by the Contractor without imposing penalty upon him. So it cannot be held that, the respondents had will-fully or negligently caused delay. Whatever, delay was caused was beyond the control or was not under the control of either party. In fact, from the documents filed by the petitioner, mentioned above, go to show that, the petitioner had been executing the work. Work was not stopped by the respondents, so as to, the petitioner could claim the determination of contract on account of stoppage of work by the respondents. Under these circumstances the respondents cannot be held solely responsible for the delay. It is therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get the amount claimed under the claim No. 2, 3 and 4. Claim No. 1 : 13. Under these circumstances the respondents cannot be held solely responsible for the delay. It is therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get the amount claimed under the claim No. 2, 3 and 4. Claim No. 1 : 13. According to the pleadings of the petitioner, the petitioner was directed at the spot to use 250 kg/cm2 bags of cement for executing the concreting work in place of 100 kg/cm2. Thereby, the contractor used 4 Lacs bags of cement, extra amounting to Rs. 10 Crores. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, a stock register is being maintained at the site, where the materials brought by the contractors are recorded and it is being signed by both the parties. But, no such stock register has been filed by the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, stock register was with the respondents. But it does not appear that the petitioner had made any effort to get the copy of stock register from the respondents or made any application before this Tribunal to make an order for production of the stock register from the respondents. 15. The petitioner has not filed any bill, voucher, receipt of purchasing 4 Lacs bags of cement nor has filed any documents with regard to transportation of 4 Lacs bags of cement from the point of purchase to the site. 16. The petitioner has also not filed any oral or documentary evidence with regard to use and consumption of extra cement of 4 Lacs bags. It is a matter of utter surprise that a person who can buy and use cement of Rs. 10 Crores would simply relinquish a huge amount of Rs. 9,97,50,000/- only on the ground that he is not capable of paying requisite court fee on 10 Crores, which goes to show that, the pleadings and claims on this count is hypothetical. We do not find any evidence to hold that, the petitioner had consumed extra 4 Lacs bags of cement in addition to what amount was required. It would also be not worthy to mention here that, the petitioner did not try to get a written order for using such a huge amount of cement and he spent Rs. We do not find any evidence to hold that, the petitioner had consumed extra 4 Lacs bags of cement in addition to what amount was required. It would also be not worthy to mention here that, the petitioner did not try to get a written order for using such a huge amount of cement and he spent Rs. 10 Crores only on the basis of verbal instructions of the site engineer, without bringing it to the knowledge of higher authorities or without recording his objection in this regard, as according to him as per the contract agreement he was required to execute the work by using 100 kg/cm2. 17. Under these circumstance, we found that, the claimant has utterly failed to prove claim No. 1 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the claim amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Claim No. 5 : 18. Since, the entire claim No. 1 to 4 are rejected, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get interest of Rs. 1 Lacs under claim No. 5. 19. In view of the above discussion we found that the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be rejected. Accordingly the petition is hereby rejected. 20. Parties shall bear their own cost. 21. Advocate fees if certified as per schedule. 22. Memo of cost be drawn accordingly.