Raj Kumar Jain v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr

C.HARI SHANKAR, J AUGUST 28, 2019 kks

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 28th August, 2019 + LPA 465/2019 & CM APPLs. 32343/2019, 32344/2019, 32345/2019 & 38470/2019 RAJ KUMAR JAIN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manoranjan Sinha, Adv. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Hafsa Khan & Ms. Rudrakshi Deo, Advs. for R-1. Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Adv. for DMRC. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) LPA No.465/2019 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) whose W.P.(C) No.2897/2019 has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 25.03.2019 (order at Annexure 'A' to the memo of this LPA). 2. Counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) has drawn our attention to several reports which are at Page Nos. 110, 129 and 143 and pertaining to November 2017, July 2018 and January 2019, respectively. These reports have been given by the Central Building Research Institute (CBRI). 3. Counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the metro line going beneath the house of the appellant, which is narrated as property No.168, Ground Floor, First Floor and Terrace, Rameshwar Nagar, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as 'the property in question'), as mentioned in the memo of the writ petition as well as in this LPA, is causing severe damage to his property like tilting, settlement, cracks, etc. which requires total demolition of the property in question, and a new house ought to have been constructed by the respondents. 4. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(C) No.2897/2019 vide judgment and order dated 25.03.2019. Counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that there is more than one report given by the competent Institute, which are on record, and which are narrated by the counsel for the appellant. As per the policy floated by the respondents, if any house is to be demolished as per the report of the Expert Committee, only then will it be demolished, and it will be re-constructed by the respondents. If the house is repairable as per the report given by the Committee of Experts, in such an eventuality, only the compensation for repair will be given by the respondents. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in the present case, as per the report given by the Expert Committee, the house in question is repairable and is not to be demolished. Hence, the respondents have already offered Rs.32,93,253/-, as stated in the aforesaid reports. 5. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondents that this amount has been finalized looking to the reports given by the Expert Committee. It is also submitted that if the appellant is disputing such reports, then this amount will not be paid, and let this appellant be relegated to the Trial Court where the evidence can be led and exact damages can be proved and paid in accordance with the decision by the Trial Court. 6. Having heard the counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the reports of the Expert Committee at Page No.110 Annexure 'N', Page No.129 Annexure 'R' and Page No.143 Annexure 'W', which are of November 2017, July 2018 and January 2019, respectively, it appears that the house in question is a repairable property. 7. In view of the policy floated by the respondents, if the house is repairable then the money required for repairs will be paid by the respondents, which has been estimated at Rs.32,93,253/-, as stated hereinabove. 8. It appears that the appellant is disputing the payment of the aforesaid amount, mainly for the reasons that the whole house requires to be demolished and new house has to be constructed by the respondents, the manner in which the respondents have given money for re-const