AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
W.A. Shishak, J.—Heard.
The petitioners are in possession of respective plots of lands and they are running shops for the last about 20 years. It is also stated that earnest money has been deposited in respect of those plots of lands of shops. They are also ready to deposit 2% supervision charges. It is contended that if the respondents calculate the actual amount of 2% supervision charges the petitioners are ready to pay and proceed with construction of their respective shops. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are taking steps to evict. It appears that there is no positive step that has been taken so far to evict the petitioners though an apprehension has been expressed at the bar today. Further, I am of the opinion that if eviction becomes necessary, the respondents can do so only by following procedure laid down in this regard. At the same time, in my view, it is for the respondents to consider if the prayer of the writ petitioners that after 2% supervision charges are deposited whether they can be permitted to start the construction. Two courses are now open to the respondents. One is to accept the prayer of the writ petitioners to allow them to deposit 2% supervision charges and to construct the respective shops and the other is if eviction otherwise becomes necessary, the petitioners would be given opportunity of being heard. In other words eviction can be carried out only in due process of law by going through all relevant procedures laid down in this regard.
For the reasons stated above, the petition is disposed of.
Certificate copy as per rules.