A municipal corporation can be held liable for negligence in maintaining public infrastructure, resulting in water logging and damages to private properties, warranting enhanced compensation.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. This Court has before it two cross Letters Patents Appeals emanating from the Impugned Judgment dated 12.02.2020 ("Impugned Judgment"), passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 8098/2010. The first of these appeals i.e. LPA No. 48/2021 has been filed by Smt. Leela Mathur seeking, inter alia, an enhancement of the cost of Rs.3 lakhs imposed upon the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD") vide the Impugned Judgment. The other appeal i.e. LPA No. 161/2021, has been preferred by the MCD seeking setting aside of the compensation/costs of Rs.3 lakhs imposed upon it.

2. The facts of the appeals before us are that Smt. Leela Mathur presently resides at House No.98, West Azad Nagar, Shahdara, South Delhi, Delhi. This property was purchased by her parents in 1952 and in 1976, Smt. Leela Mathur's father applied for completion certificate vide Receipt No. 222034 by depositing a certain fee. Smt. Leela Mathur contends that she has been residing in the said property since 1970.

3. In W.P.(C) 8098/2010, it was the case of the Appellant i.e. Smt. Leela Mathur that when the property was constructed, it was placed at the road level. However, subsequently, the Municipal Corporation has re-laid the adjoining road. Each time the road was repaired/re-constructed, the level of the road rose by about 21/2 feet. Due to this, the Petitioner/Appellant's house has gone below the road level.

4. The Appellant states that she had requested the authorities at various instances to dig the road, and then construct it to ensure that her house is not placed below the road level, however, to no avail. The effect of this is that since the house is below the road level, the rain water gets collected in the house which has caused damage to the house of the Petitioner. It is stated that during the monsoons it is impossible to live in the house as rain water enters the house. This constrained Smt. Leela Mathur to file W.P.(C) 8098/2010 against MCD, seeking a direction to the MCD to reconstruct the road, and compensation for the harm caused to her belongings. The Ld. Single Judge vide Order dated 03.12.2010 was pleased to issue notice and direct the filing of a status report.

5. On 23.03.2011, the MCD filed its first Status Report in WP(C) 8098/2010 stating that since the property of Smt. Leela Mathur is an old construction, it was below the level of the road. Further, it was submitted by the MCD that Smt. Leela Mathur's property was the only one below road level. In her reply to the first Status Report, Smt. Leela Mathur stated that she had personally visited the houses of her neighbours, and that several of them were facing the same issue. Due to this, several individuals of her locality had also been compelled to sell their houses to builders who possessed the financial wherewithal to reconstruct houses.

6. In light of the competing facts brought on record, the Ld. Single Judge vide Order dated 06.05.2011 directed certain officials of the MCD to inspect the premises again. Further, he sought solutions from the officials of the MCD.

7. Thereafter, the MCD filed its second Status Report, whereby it confirmed that there were in fact 11 properties in the area which faced the same issue as Smt. Leela Mathur. The MCD suggested that the Smt. Leela Mathur should apply for a fresh building plan, and re-construct her house in accordance with it. A reply was filed by Smt. Leela Mathur on 12.04.2012 wherein she reiterated her previous position.

8. On 24.05.2012, the Ld. Si