Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, YASHWANT VARMA, JJ.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Airport Authority of India and Another - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 379 of 2016 and CM Appl. No. 1564 of 2016
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Mr. Sudhir Chandra Agarwala, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Avneesh Garg, Ms. Srika S. & Mr. P. Sinha, Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Anshul Rai, Mr. Sreoshi Chatterjee, Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Mr. Aman Yadav & Mr. Archit Mishra.
The principles of limitation apply to claims for damages under Section 28G of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, similar to the application in Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Headnote:
Limitation - Recovery of Damages - Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 - Section 28G - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was held liable to pay damages to the respondent for unauthorized occupation of airport premises. The petitioner argued that the claim for damages was time-barred, relying on the judgment in New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Kalu Ram.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the principles of limitation apply to claims for damages under Section 28G of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, similar to the application in Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claim for damages under Section 28G was time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in Kalu Ram, which held that the word 'payable' in Section 7 of the PP Act means monies due and recoverable in law, and that the principles of limitation apply to such claims. The court also rejected the argument that the absence of the word 'payable' in Section 28G(2) indicated a legislative intent to exclude limitation for recovery of damages.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was relieved from the liability to pay damages.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition assails the validity of the order of 11 March 2015 passed by the Appellate Tribunal acting under Section 28G of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, [1994 Act]. The Appellate Tribunal has in terms of the impugned order essentially held the petitioner liable to pay Rs. 87,52,746/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from December 2005 as damages to the respondent.
2. The appeal itself had been preferred by the respondent assailing the order of the Eviction Officer acting under Section 28G of the 1994 Act rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the amounts which were claimed by Airport Authority of India, [AAI] were barred by time and would not sustain in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Kalu Ram, (1976) 3 SCC 407.
3. It was the contention of the petitioner before the Eviction Officer, and one which was also reiterated before the Appellate Tribunal, that the claim for damages was essentially laid in respect of the period relating to 2005-2006 and since proceedings were drawn beyond the period of limitation which would apply, the same was liable to be negatived. Both the Eviction Officer as well as the Appellate Tribunal have held against the petitioner with reliance being placed on the judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai, 1980 SCC OnLine MP 1 which while dealing with the provisions contained in Section 7(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, [PP Act] had following the decision of the Punjab High Court in Kalu Ram v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, 1965 SCC OnLine Punj 116 held that a claim for damages would not be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, [Limitation Act].
4. For the purposes of considering the issues which arise, the following essential facts may be noticed. The petitioner was running two retail outlets on sites originally allotted on lease by AAI. In 2006, AAI is stated to have transferred its rights as a lessor to Delhi International Airport Limited, [DIAL]. The writ petitioner further asserts that in 1991, land was leased by AAI for establishment of another retail outlet near Terminal-II and in the vicinity of the National Institute of Aviation Management and Research, [NIAMAR]. It was this retail outlet which formed the subject matter of the proceedings which came to be initiated under the 1994 Act. On or about July 2004, AAI conveyed to the petitioner the approval accorded by the competent authority for relocation of the retail outlet in question situate near NIAMAR to a new location opposite the Centaur Hotel. The aforesaid approval was made subject to the condition that the petitioner would surrender possession of the old site near NIAMAR within six months of the handing over of the new location. As per the terms of the approval which was granted, it was further prescribed that if the old site was not vacated within the time indicated hereinabove, the petitioner would be liable to pay penalty @ Rs. 5,000/- per square meter. Responding to the letter, the petitioner appears to have conveyed to AAI that it would surrender the old site only upon commissioning of the retail outlet at the newly allotted location. It is also stated to have submitted an undertaking to the aforesaid effect.
5. The petitioner is stated to have been handed over possession of the new site on 27 August 2004. As per the disclosures made in the writ petition, it surrendered the old site to AAI on or about 23 November 2005. It is also its case that AAI had also continued to receive rent for the aforesaid site right up to 31 March 2006. On 04 April 2006, AAI is stated to have entered into an Operations, Management and Development Agreement, [OMDA] with DIAL and in terms thereof DIAL took over the interests in land over wh
