AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Panigrahi, J.—Union of India has filed this appeal challenging the confirming judgment passed by the courts below in M. S. No. 296 of 1979 directing them to deposit Rs. 8625. 52 P. for damages for having demolished the structure standing on Railway Plot Nos. 14 and 15 constructed by the Plaintiff on or about 1.7.1975.
Undisputedly the original plaintiff was a licensee for the said plots belonging to the South Eastern Railway near Cuttack Railway Station pursuant to an agreement bearing No. KUR/Eng./20 dated 20.12.65 executed by and between the Railways and the original plaintiff. After execution of the agreement the original plaintiff took possession of the demised property and constructed a shed thereon along with two pucca rooms and carried on business thereon. Without notice to the licensee-original plaintiff, his house was bulldozed resulting in loss to the tune of Rs 5000/-. The original plaintiff also claimed other damages due to illegal and highhanded action of the appellants.
The appellant has taken a plea that it was not the Union of India which had demolished the structure, but it was the State Government and its officials which might have caused such damages. The trial court has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 5000/- towards damage and Rs. 1296 towards security deposit as an equitable measure inasmuch as such demolition was made without notice to the licensee. The trial court in its judgment held that on 1.7.75 the licensee''s premises were demolished. Such demolition had taken place in presence of the appellants'' officials. But they did not make any demur against such nigh-handed act on of the officials of the State Government . Therefore, the trial court directed the appellant to pay the damages and also the security deposit as mentioned above. They being the licenser, in case any high-handed action was carried on by the State Government officials, they should have prevented them from doing such illegal action. At any rate, both the courts below have concurrently held that the appellant would be liable to pay such damages.
Since no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, it would not be proper to keep this case alive.
Mr. Pal fairly concedes that in terms of the judgment passed by the courts below, the appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 11,133/- before the executing court.
In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.