Gulab Chand and Others vs The Municipal Corporation Bhilai and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent No. 1 and 2, to allot the plots in question in favour of the petitioners and to deliver its possession, further, to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the respondent authorities and their erring officials, and to saddle them with exemplary cost and the petitioners be compensated adequately. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are the petty shopkeepers running small kuccha shops and selling cheap garments on G.E. Road, on a place called as Sasta Bazar for the last 10 to 12 years. The respondent No. 1 and 2, i.e. Special Area Development Authority, Bhilai, which was later on substituted by Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, undertook a demolition drive in April 1992 wherein the entire Sasta Market was uprooted and demolished. Thereafter, a scheme was formulated by the respondent No. 1 and 2 for rehabilitation of those shop keepers who became jobless after the demolition drive. The said scheme provided for grant of plots to the shop keepers admeasuring 2.5m X 3.5 m on 30 years lease on annual rent of Rs. 238/- and premium amount of Rs. 5649/-, with an option of two times renewal of the same. All the similarly situated shop keepers including the petitioners applied for grant of plot but nothing was done. Thus, a complaint was made to the Collector, Durg, who directed the respondent No. 1 and 2 to implement the scheme. It is the case of the petitioners that they were informed by the respondent No. 1 and 2 that they would be allotted plot No. 61, 68, 67, 62, 63, and 60, respectively and the petitioners were directed to deposit the amount of premium, which was deposited by them in the month of December, 1995. Many of the shop keepers were allotted the plots except the petitioners. The petitioners approached the respondent No. 1 and 2, and in turn, were given nothing, but assurances. A representation was also made on 12.06.1996 to the respondent authorities which is pending consideration. The action of the respondent authorities is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this petition.

On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioners have no authority to file this petition except petitioner No. 5, as the other petitioners are mere encroachers, who were evicted in the year 1992 for removing the encroachment. There was no agreement between the petitioners and the respondents for allotment of plots in sasta bazaar, neither they were asked to deposit any amount for allotment of plots, all what the petitioners deposited, was on their own as no offer was made to the petitioners by the respondent authorities. He would further submit that in a similar petition filed by one Babulal, being W.P. No. 135/1996, this Court had directed to maintain status quo by order dated 12.01.1996, thus, even if the petitioners were eligible, the allotment could not have been done. However, he fairly submits that the said petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, on 17.02.2012 by this Court. Shri Agrawal would further submit that the as many as 1300 persons were evicted in the drive, thus, it is would not be possible to accommodate each and every person.

None appears on behalf of respondent No. 3.

This Court, by order dated 09.01.1998, granted an interim order by directing the respondents to keep six plots ready for allotment, if the petitioners succeed.

It is indisputable that the petitioners were having small kuccha shops and were selling cheap garments etc. at the place, namely Sasta Bazar. There is also no dispute that the said market was demolished for the purpose of improvement and it was decided by the predecessor of the respondent No. 1 and 2, to allot plots to the shop holders on payment of certain premium amount and also the yearly lease rent. It is also not disputed that the petitioners had deposited the required premium amount on 21.12.1995 (Annexure P/4) also. The respondent-Corporation has not declined to accept the premium amount and further, never communicated to the petitioners that their case would not be considered as they were not in the list prepared by them, thus, they should take back their money. The respondent-Corporation has accepted the money from the petitioners and enjoyed the same for a long time. Thus, the contention of the respondent-Corporation that except the petitioner No. 5, all other petitioners are encroachers, is not sustainable.

The petitioners have been sitting in a hope of allotment of plots, since 1992 till date. Whatever money they have earned, they had deposited with the respondent- Corporation on the hope that they would be allotted favourable plots in the newly constructed area i.e. Mutton Gali Market, Sasta Market, Camp II Bhilai. This is evident from the resolution dated 10.12.1992 (Annexure P/14) also.

This Court, being satisfied with the case of the petitioners, by order dated 09.01.1998, directed the respondents to keep six plots vacant for the petitioners in the event, they succeed. I do not find any merit in the argument of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioners were encroaches, therefore, they cannot be granted alternative plots, even on payment of premium amount.

Accordingly, the respondent-Corporation are directed to consider the case of the petitioners immediately for allotment of plots, which have been kept vacant reserved for the petitioners on the basis of premium paid by them. If something more is required to be paid towards allotment of the plots, the same may also be considered by the respondent-authorities, however, it should not be exorbitant or at the prevailing rate as on date.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed partly, to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order asto costs.