AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Sekhri, J
Present case has a chequered history of about 37 years as it traces its origin to the year 1986, when a piece of land measuring 38600 sft. situate at Rail Head Complex was allotted by the respondents in favour of the original petitioner, namely, Kranti Gosh (now deceased) and he was put into possession. A hotel by the name and style of “Kranti Hotel” was raised on this piece of land. A writ petition, being OWP No. 582 of 1992, was filed in this Court, whereby it was claimed by the petitioner that he had been assured by the respondents that adjoining plot of land measuring 4.5 kanals would also be allotted in his favour. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.05.1998. The Letters patent Appeal, being LPA(W) No. 93 of 1998, filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the writ Court was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 01.10.1999 with the following observations:
“As a result of aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. On his own showing appellant claims to have entered upon possession which we are satisfied on the basis of material before the writ court as well as on the basis of affidavit dated 4.9.1999 filed during the course of this appeal appellant claims to have come into possession over the plot of land measuring 4.5 kanals somewhere in October, 1983 contumaciously. Accordingly on the strength of this order Jammu Development Authority will be well within its rights to take over physical possession of the same so that it is in a position to deal with the same as its absolute owner to its best advantage. Since this is a case of contumacious use of the public property unauthorizedly by the appellant, we direct the Jammu Development Authority to appoint an officer of appropriate rank to assess the market rate of use and occupation charges of this plot of land which shall be recoverable from the appellant on the force of this order as if those were costs in the appeal. Subject to these directions this appeal stands dismissed with costs. Exercise of assessment be completed within six months from today.”
The petitioner preferred a review petition, being Review (LPA) No. 85 of 1999 against the aforesaid judgment dated 01.10.1999 passed by learned Division Bench.
The case set up by the petitioner is that during the pendency of the review petition, a notice dated 31.03.2000 came to be published in Daily Excelsior Newspaper on 20.04.2000 whereby he was directed to deposit Rs. 95.50 lacs, assessed at the market rate prevalent from time to time, as use and occupation charges of the plot of Jammu Development Authority (JDA), under his unauthorized occupation, within a period of one month. When he came to know about the aforesaid notice, he addressed a communication dated 29.04.2000 to respondent No. 2, which was received on the same day, whereby respondent No.
2 was informed that the assessment of occupation charges could not be made at his back and he also prayed for copies of various orders like assessment proceedings, assessment order, criteria, if any, adopted in ascertaining the damages. This communication was followed by communications dated 11.05.2000, 17.05.2000 and 26.05.2000, stated to be received by the respondent-authorities, on the same day thereby reiterating the earlier requests made in the first communication dated 29.04.2000. Subsequently, the review petition filed by the petitioner against the Division Bench judgment was also dismissed by this Court on 04.04.2006. Petitioner subsequently received another notice dated 24.05.2006 from respondent No.3-Tehsildar (Recovery) JDA, Jammu asking him to cause his personal appearance before him for payment of Rs. 95.00 lacs being rent of “Kranti Hotel”.
Petitioner, being aggrieved of both the aforesaid recovery notices dated 31.03.2000 and 24.05.2006, has invoked writ jurisdiction of this court for issuance of appropriate writs, inter alia on the following grounds:
i. that the judgment of Division Bench is subject to the provisions of J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988 [for short, Public Premises Act]. According to the petitioner, since Sub Sections 2 and 4 of Section 10 of Public Premises Act makes a provision for assessment of damages on account of unauthorized occupation by Estate Officer subject to the requirement of following rules of natural justice, therefore, the Division Bench judgment was required to be followed by the respondents in accordance with law;
ii. that an order passed under Section 10 of Public Premises Act is appealable before the District Judge in terms of Section 12 of Public Premises Act and since impugned notices have not been passed under the provisions of the said Act, petitioner has been deprived of his legal right to file an appeal;
iii. that the Division Bench directed that amount assessed, “shall be recoverable from the petitioner as if those were costs in his appeal”.
According to the petitioner, costs can be determined by the court of its own under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) and same could not be recovered by respondent No. 3 as Tehsildar (Recovery);
iv. that Division Bench allowed the respondents to appoint an officer of appropriate rank to assess the market rate for use and occupation charges of the plot. However, it is not known as to how the market rate of use and occupation has been assessed by the respondent authority. According to the petitioner, despite repeated applications addressed to the respondent authority, the information in this respect was never furnished to him;
v. that a part of adjoining piece of land measuring 20‘ X 60‘ was rented out by the respondents to the petitioner @ Rs.100/- per month way back in the year 1983, therefore, the assessment made by the respondents amounting to Rs. 95.00 lacs is unconscionable and penal in nature; and
vi. that petitioner filed a civil suit claiming therein that land in question measuring 4.5 kanals is a State land and was never transferred by the erstwhile State to the respondent-authority and the stand of the erstwhile State of J&K and its officials in the civil suit has been that the land was never transferred to JDA and it continuous to be the State land, therefore, according to the petitioner the impugned notices are without jurisdiction.
The petitioner, therefore, seeks issuance of appropriate writs for quashment of the judgment passed by learned Division Bench as also quashment of impugned notices dated 31.03.2000 and 24.05.2006.
It is pertinent to mention that petitioner-Kranti Gosh passed away during the pendency of writ petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record.
Countervailing the stand taken by the petitioner, the respondent-authority, on the legal front, is affront with the contention that petitioner has filed instant writ petition with a view to defeat the judgment passed by learned Division Bench of this Court, which is not permissible under law, as the remedy available to him was to assail the said judgment by way of SLP before Supreme Court and disputed questions of the facts, raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is contention of the respondents that assessment of use and occupation charges has been made by an independent officer of the rank of Superintending Engineer, as per land value per kanal adopted in the year 1983 and as per norms of Public Works Department, in compliance with the directions of learned Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 01.10.1999.
It is categoric stand of the respondents that, by virtue of impugned notices, different amounts are being recovered from the petitioner; one as premium and rent of Rs. 95.00 lacs for the area under Kranti Hotel Complex and two as compensation of Rs.95.50 lacs for use and occupation of JDA land adjoining the Hotel, as per judgment of learned Division Bench. It is also stand of the respondents that Tehsildar (Recovery), in the discharge of his official duty, only summoned the petitioner to appear in his office and it does not provide any cause of action to the petitioner to file the present petition.
Respondents have also questioned the present petition on the ground of delay and laches. According to the respondents, the demand notice was published in the Daily Excelsior newspaper on 31.03.2000 which stands accepted by the petitioner for over six years by way of his conduct.
On facts, respondents have resisted the petition inter alia on the grounds that petitioner had full knowledge of the assessment at Rs. 95.50 lacs as use and occupation charges but he remained silent with the assessment made by a competent independent officer, as evident from the report of Superintending Engineer in this respect. Communications addressed by the petitioner were only an eye-wash as petitioner was properly informed about the amount recoverable from him. Petitioner was also informed by way of letter dated 03.03.2000 sent by registered post, which was not acknowledged by the petitioner and his Receptionist/Counter Incharge of the Hotel. According to the respondents, distance between the Kranti Hotel Complex of the petitioner and JDA Complex of the respondents is hardly 200 meters. Petitioner has filed dozens of cases against JDA and he, having every access in the JDA complex, cannot be heard to say that copies were not provided to him as he is an expert litigant.
According to the respondents, neither the provisions of Public Premises Act nor the Code are attracted to the present case as neither any matter was subjudice nor decided by the Division Bench against any order passed under the said Act or the Code.
In so far as claim of the petitioner that land in question is a State land and was never transferred to JDA is concerned, it is contention of the respondents that petitioner right from the year 1983, till judgment passed by the Division Bench on 01.10.1999 has accepted the ownership of JDA and, therefore, petitioner cannot be heard to say that land in question is a State land. According to the respondents, all State lands adjoining the Jammu Municipality stand already transferred to the JDA. Respondents have filed a detailed written statement in the civil suit with supporting documentary evidence that the land in question allotted to the Hotel of the petitioner as also the adjoining land has been acquired by the JDA through Collector Land Acquisition and same is not a State land. Petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Before commencement of the arguments, Mr. RKS Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, seeks and is allowed to withdraw grounds vi, vii, viii, ix and prayer (i) with respect to declaration of the observations passed by learned Division Bench of this Court as void. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, confined his arguments to prayers (ii) and (iii) of the petition for quashment of the impugned notices dated 13.03.2000 and 24.05.2006.
Having heard the rival contentions and perused the record, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances attending the present case as also the legal position governing the controversy.
Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of petition, some uncontroverted facts of the case are required to be noticed, though at the cost of brevity. A piece of land measuring 38600 sft. situate at Rail Head Complex was allotted in the name of Sh. Kranti Gosh (deceased petitioner) by the respondents and the allottee, after being put into possession, raised a hotel by the name and style of “Kranti Hotel”. Petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court claiming therein that he had been assured by the respondents that adjoining plot of land measuring 4.5 kanals would also be allotted in this favour. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 22.05.1998 and the LPA filed by the petitioner, against the said judgment of the writ court too, did not find favour with the Division Bench of this Court and it came to be dismissed on 01.10.1999. Petitioner preferred a review petition, which too, was dismissed by the review Court on 04.04.2006. During the pendency of the review petition, however, impugned notice dated 31.03.2000 came to be published in Daily Excelsior Newspaper on 20.04.2000 whereby petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 95.50 lacs as use and occupation charges of the said 4.5 kanals land in question adjoining the hotel complex. According to the petitioner, despite various communications addressed by him to the respondents, relevant details including assessment proceedings, assessment order, criteria if any, adopted in ascertaining damages, were never provided to him. Subsequently, second impugned notice dated 24.05.2006 was also served upon the petitioner by respondent No. 3 i.e. Tehsildar (Recovery) JDA, whereby petitioner was asked to cause his personal appearance at 10.00 a.m. in his office for the payment of Rs. 95.00 lacs as rent of “Kranti Hotel”.
Petitioner has questioned the first impugned notice dated 31.03.2000 inter alia on the grounds that the assessment of use and occupation charges of 4.5 kanals of land in question, pursuant to the directions of learned Division Bench of this Court, could not be made at his back. According to the petitioner, the observation of learned Division Bench is subject to the provisions of Public Premises Act as Sub Sections 2 & 4 of Section 10 of the said Act makes a provision for assessment of damages on account of unauthorized occupation by Estate Officer, subject, however, to the requirement of following the principles of natural justice. It is also submission of the petitioner that an order passed under Section 10 of the said Act is appealable before the District Judge, in terms of Section 12 of the Public Premises Act and since impugned notices having not been issued under the provisions of the said Act, therefore, petitioner has been deprived of his legal right to file an appeal. Petitioner has also contended that Division Bench directed that amount assessed, “shall be recoverable from him as costs in his appeal, however, costs could be determined by the Court of its own in terms of Section 35 of the Code and could not be recoverable by respondent No.3 in the capacity of being Tehsildar (Recovery).
Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memo of appeal has relied upon Nisha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported as (2014)) 16 SCC 392, Sayeedur Rehman v. State of Bihar and others reported as (1973) 3 SCC 333, S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and ors. reported as (1980) 4 SCC 379, Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others reported as (2018) 16 SCC 276 and UOI and anr. P. N. Natarajan and ors. reported as (2010) 12 SCC 405.
I have carefully gone through the case law cited at Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute to the settled position of law that the principles of natural justice are the foundation of administration of justice and are applicable not only to the judicial proceedings, but also to the quasi judicial and administrative proceedings. The natural justice is required to be scrupulously observed where legal or statutory right of a person is directly or indirectly infringed. It is not an empty formality and is required to be duly observed before a judicial or a quasi judicial body embarks upon to take a call on the merits of a case. However, Sub Section 4 of Section 10 of the Public Premises Act, with respect to issuance of prior notice in writing, is envisaged only in cases where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, under his unauthorized occupation and the Estate Officer, assessed damages on account of use and occupation of the public premises, having regard to the principles of assessment of damages, as may be prescribed and issued an order calling upon the said person to pay the damages within the meaning of Sub Section 2 of Section 10 of the said Act. It implies that Sub Section 4 of Section 10 of the said Act can be pressed into service only in cases, where proceedings for recovery of rent of Public Premises are initiated under Section 10 of the said Act. However, impugned notice dated 31.03.2000 has been issued against the petitioner pursuant to direction passed by learned Division Bench of this Court whereby respondents have been directed to appoint an officer of appropriate rank for assessment of the market rate of use and occupation charges of the aforesaid 4.5 kanals of land in question, adjoining the hotel complex of the petitioner, recoverable as if same were costs of the LPA. It is pertinent to mention that aforesaid direction came to be passed by learned Division Bench in view of the fact that petitioner had admitted in his writ petition as also in the LPA that he entered upon the possession of the said 4.5 kanals of the land in question. Learned Division Bench has observed that respondents have not only the right to take over physical possession of the said land, but also to recover the use and occupation charges against the contumacious use of the public property, unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner. Since respondents have neither initiated any proceedings under the Public Premises Act for recovery of arrears of rent of public premises nor under the Code and impugned notice dated 31.03.2000 has been issued against the petitioner pursuant to the directions passed by learned Division Bench of this Court, therefore, neither Sub Section 4 of Section 10 of the Public Premises Act nor Section 35 of the Code are applicable in the present case. Consequently, the present writ petition is not maintainable on this count.
Petitioner has also questioned the first impugned notice on the ground that learned Division Bench allowed the respondents to appoint an officer of appropriate rank for the assessment of market rate for use and occupation of the land in question, however, it is not known as to how the assessment has been made and what criteria has been adopted by the respondents in ascertaining the damages. According to the petitioner, despite repeated communications addressed to the respondents, details in this respect were never provided to him. The petitioner submits that a part of adjoining piece of land in question measuring 20′ X 60′ i.e. 1200 sft. was rented out by the respondents to him @ Rs.100/- per month way back in the year 1983, therefore, assessment made by the respondents amounting to Rs. 95.00 lacs is unconscionable. During the currency of arguments, Mr. Thakur has also placed on record a recent copy of notice dated 11.05.2023 issued by the respondents for recovery of Rs. 51,574/-including the rent of hall/land/ground rent along with GST etc. of the “Kranti Hotel” complex w.e.f. 08.07.2017 to 31.03.2023 i.e. for a period of six years. Petitioner on the strength of these two instances would submit that assessment made by the respondents, besides being arbitrary, is illegal in nature. He also submits that petitioner has also been served upon the second impugned notice dated 24.05.2006 vide which he has been called upon by respondent No. 3 i.e. Tehsildar (Recovery) JDA Jammu to cause his personal appearance in his office at 10.00 a.m. for the payment of Rs. 95.00 lacs being rent of “Kranti Hotel”, however, without mentioning any date in the notice on which he was supposed to appear.
Be it noted that, it is a clear and categoric stand of the respondents that both the notices, impugned in the present writ petition and both the amounts sought to be recovered by virtue of these notices are different. The amount sought to be recovered by virtue of first impugned notice dated 31.03.2000 is with respect to use and occupation charges assessed by independent officer of the rank of Superintending Engineer, pursuant to directions passed by learned Division Bench and the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner by virtue of second impugned notice dated 24.05.2006 is the premium and rent for the area under “Kranti Hotel”.
In so far as first impugned notice dated 31.03.2000 is concerned, it is stand of the respondents that it is with respect to use and occupation charges assessed by an independent officer of the rank of Superintending Engineer, as per land value per kanal adopted in the year 1983 and as per norms of Public Works Department, pursuant to the directions of learned Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 01.10.1999. The report submitted by the said independent officer of the rank of Superintending Engineer, addressed to respondent No. 2 has been placed on record and reproduced in para 2(c) of the objections which reads thus:
2(c). That para-(c) is a matter of record. Petitioner was having full knowledge of the amount assessed at Rs.95,50,000/- as use and occupation charges and remained silent and satisfied with this assessment made by a competent and independent officer. As regards addressing of a communication to the Vice Chairman JDA, it is an eye wash only. The petitioner was properly informed about the amount recoverable from the petitioner. It is further humbly submitted that the criteria adopted in ascertaining the use and occupation charges of JDA land, the report of superintendent Engineer in this regard is reproduced as under:
“Land measuring 7.74 kanals adjacent to Kranti Hotel, remained under the illegal occupation of Shri Kranti Ghosh, from October 1993 to September 1999 as per the office record. In order to assess the rental value of the said piece of land, the rate at which the Kranti Hotel site measuring 386000 sft. (7.15 kanals) was allotted by JDA on 11.03.1982 for a total premium of Rs. 22.57 lacs, has been adopted as the basis for the year 1982. Thereafter compounding has been done at 18% p.a. which is the normal practice in case of HUDCO Financed commercial schemes. Thus the land value per kanal in October 1983 has been adopted as Rs. 3.73 lac/kanal and subsequently the rates have been compounded from year to year limiting to market rate as were applicable from time to time as per the JDA office record. Rental value p.a. has been worked out at 6.5% which is the PWD norm used for rental evaluation. The total rental value for the usage of the 7.74 kanals of land which remained under illegal occupation of Shri Kranti Ghosh thus works out to 95.50 lacs. Hence report is sent for further necessary action.”
(Underlined for emphasis)
It is pertinent to reiterate and recall that it is an admitted position of fact that the land in question is 4.5 kanals adjacent to “Kranti Hotel” complex of the petitioner. This fact is also evident from the observation of learned Division Bench that appellant claims to have come into possession over the plot of the aforesaid land measuring 4.5 kanals somewhere in October, 1983 contumaciously. However, Superintending Engineer JDA, an officer of appropriate rank, appointed by the respondent-authority pursuant to the direction of learned Division Bench, has assessed the use and occupation charges of land measuring 7.74 kanals adjacent to “Kranti Hotel”. It is evident from a bare perusal of the report of the Superintending Engineer that rental value for the usage of 7.74 kanals of land has been assessed as against 4.5 kanals of the land in question. Report further suggests that “Kranti Hotel” site measuring 38600 sft. i.e. 7.15 kanals was allotted to the petitioner on 11.03.1982 for a total premium of Rs. 22.57 lacs and same has been adopted as basis for the year 1982. As already discussed, a notice for the recovery of Rs.51,574/- including rent of hall/land/ground along with GST etc. has been served upon the petitioner recently on 11.05.2023 for the period w.e.f. 08.07.2017 to 41.03.2023 i.e. for a period of six years. It is also not in dispute that a part of piece of land in question adjoining the hotel complex measuring 20′ X 60′ i.e 1200 sft. was rented out by the respondents to the petitioner @ Rs.100/- per kanal in the year 1983. It is, therefore, clear that the officer of appropriate rank i.e. Superintending Engineer has not only erred in assessing excess land i.e. 7.74 kanals as use and occupation charges against 4.5 kanals of the land in dispute but he has also fallen in error in adopting the criteria for assessment. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that had the petitioner been served upon a show cause notice and associated with the assessment process, he would have not only produced the relevant material before the assessment officer, but could assist him to assess the proper usage and occupation charges of the land in question.
So far as second notice dated 24.05.2006, impugned in the present writ petition is concerned, it is evident from the contents of the notice that petitioner has been asked by respondent No. 3, Tehsildar (Recovery) JDA, Jammu to appear before him at 10.00 a.m. for payment of Rs. 95.00 lacs as rent of “Kranti Hotel”. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly admitted that no date of appearance has been mentioned in the said notice, on which petitioner was supposed to appear. Even the period, for which the rent due is recoverable, has not been mentioned in the notice. As stated earlier, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a recent copy of notice dated 11.05.2023 issued by the respondents for the recovery of Rs.51,574/- as rent of hall/land/ground along with GST etc. for a period w.e.f. 08.07.2017 to 31.03.2023. It is evident from the notice that respondents by virtue of said notice seeks recovery of the rent for a particular period mentioned in the notice. However, the second impugned notice dated 24.05.2006 is silent about the period. Neither the date for appearance of the petitioner has been mentioned nor the period for which the rent is due has been mentioned in the said notice.
Allegation against the respondents is that neither any show cause notice was served upon the petitioner nor requisite information with respect to assessment proceedings and the criteria adopted in ascertainment of the damages was provided to him despite various communications addressed to the respondents. Surprise stand of the respondents is that since petitioner has filed dozens of cases against JDA and he is a chronic litigant, therefore, he having every access in the JDA complex cannot be heard to say that requisite information with respect to the assessment and criteria adopted for the ascertainment of the damages was not provided to him. It is also submission of the respondents that petitioner was duly informed about the assessment of compensation by the Superintending Engineer by way of letter dated 03.03.2000, however, Receptionist/counter Incharge of “Kranti Hotel” refused to acknowledge the said letter. A perusal of endorsement on the registered letter annexed with the objections reflects that same was received back by the respondents because owner of the hotel was stated to be out of station. In these circumstances, petitioner could either be served upon fresh notice or he could be informed by way of publication in a daily newspaper. Merely because a litigant has filed multiple cases against an authority, is not sufficient to assume that he has knowledge with respect to any action initiated against him. Petitioner cannot be presumed to have due information with respect to the assessment process on the ground that he is a regular visitor to the JDA complex and has filed dozens of cases against JDA.
As already observed, since respondents have not initiated any proceedings under the Public Premises Act for the recovery of arrears of rent, therefore, Sub Section 4 of Public Premises Act regarding issuance of show cause notice is not attracted in the present case. However, given the long drawn controversy between the parties, it would have been in the fitness of things that petitioner was associated with the assessment process in accordance with the observations of learned Division Bench of this Court. There is absolutely no doubt that respondent-authority is entitled to recover the use and occupation charges against the contumacious use of the public property unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner and petitioner is liable to pay the said amount to the respondents. The amount recoverable from the petitioner is a public money pending since 1983, when petitioner came into contumacious possession of 4.5 kanals of land in dispute adjacent to the “Kranti Hotel” complex. This amount should have been recovered by now. However, action of the respondents as also the method adopted by them has been callous, careless and apathetic. Respondents have not only confused the issue but made a mess of the recovery of public money as Superintending Engineer, as noticed earlier, has made assessment of land measuring 7.74 kanals whereas admittedly the land in dispute is 4.5 kanals.
Respondents have also questioned the present petition on the ground of delay and laches on the premise that first impugned notice dated 31.03.2000 was published in Daily Newspaper on 20.04.2000 and present petition came to be filed by the petitioner in 2006. It is settled position of law that there is no limitation period prescribed for filing of writ petition and it can be filed within reasonable period of time. Be that as it may, petitioner had filed review petition against judgment dated 01.10.1999 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court and said review petition came to be dismissed on 04.04.2006. Therefore, present petition filed on 12.07.2006 appears to be filed within reasonable period of time. Even otherwise, since both the notices, impugned in the present petition, have been held to be cryptic, vague and illegal, therefore, delay if any, in filing of the present petition is liable to be condoned.
Public servants are bound to act in the interest of justice and in accordance with rule of law. When huge amount, in terms of clear order passed by this Court, is outstanding against the petitioner, it is painful to observe that respondents in the present case have not acted diligently and efficiently. It needs a specific mention that second impugned notice came to be issued against the petitioner on 24.05.2006 i.e. about 17 years back. It was evident after filing of the present petition that neither date for the appearance of the petitioner nor period of recovery was mentioned in the said notice and, in these circumstances, respondents were obliged to issue a fresh notice for the recovery of the public money. However, respondents have not chosen to do so for the reasons best known to them. Respondents should have initiated appropriate steps in this regard within a reasonable period of time. The assessment made by Superintending Engineer, an officer of appropriate rank, appointed by the respondents pursuant to directions of learned Division Bench of this Court, in excess of the land in question measuring 4.5. kanals clearly reflects non application of mind. High Court, being court of justice, has to consider these mitigating factors so as to ensure complete justice to the parties. Both the impugned notices in the present writ petition, therefore, being cryptic, vague and illegal are required to be set aside.
Having regard to what has been observed and discussed above, the present petition is allowed and impugned notices are quashed. Respondents are directed to appoint an officer of appropriate rank for the assessment of the market rate of use and occupation charges of the land in dispute measuring 4.5 kanals, afresh strictly in compliance to the direction passed by learned Division Bench of this Court, by associating the petitioner with the assessment process. The entire process shall be carried out within a period of six months from the date copy of this order is made available to the respondents.
With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.