SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Pat) 515

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Chaudhary S.N. Mishra, J.
Samastipur Zila Footpath Sangh & anr. - Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & ors. – Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 7602 of 1996
Decided On : 19.8.1996

Fair examination of alleged encroachments, opportunity for petitioners to address encroachments, and maintenance of status quo over allotted shop areas.

Headnote:

Demolition - Alleged Encroachment - Shops Allotted - Procedure - Discrimination - Status Quo

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners allege that the shops allotted to them are being demolished without following the prescribed procedure and on a pick and choose basis. They claim that most of the construction has been made on public land and that the demolition is discriminatory.

Finding of the Court:

The court directs the authorities to measure the alleged encroachment in the presence of the petitioners and the State respondents. If any encroachment is found, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to remove it within 48 hours, failing which the authority shall remove it and recover any costs. Status quo is to be maintained, and the areas over which the shops are allotted shall not be disturbed.

Issues: Alleged demolition of shops without following procedure, discrimination in demolition, encroachment on public land, and issuance of shop running license by the Municipality.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for a fair examination of alleged encroachments and the opportunity for the petitioners to address any encroachments found. It also highlights the importance of maintaining status quo and not disturbing the areas where the shops are allotted.

Final Decision: The writ application is disposed of with the court's observations and directions.

Order

Heard Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jagannath Jha. G.P. II, appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ application is that the shops allotted to the petitioners are being demolished without following the procedure prescribed under the law and/or guidelines provided by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2290/90. Learned counsel submits that under the scheme framed by the Administration the shops were allotted to the respective allottees and pursuant thereto rents are being paid to the department. Other grievance of the petitioners is that the demolition is being made on pick and choose basis. He has submitted that most of the construction has been made on public land, either on the Municipal land or on the Government land, for example Karpoori Market, by the side of D.R.M. office, Krishna Bhawan etc. and they are not being disturbed by the respondent authorities though they have encroached the public land. If the submission of Mr. Tara Kant Jha is correct then in that case the authority will examine the matter and proceed in accordance with law without making any discrimination between the alleged construction vis-a-vis the individuals. Mr. Jagannath Jha, however, submits that they have not only encroached the flanks but also they have encroached portion of the road.

3. Having regard to the rival contention of the parties it is not possible to pass effective order at this stage. Accordingly, I direct the respondent Collector as well as the Special Officer of the Municipality, Samastipur, to get the alleged encroachment measured by a competent person, preferably by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Roads, in presence of the representative of the petitioners as well as the State respondents and after measurement if any encroachment is found, in that event, the petitioners shall be given opportunity to remove the same within 48 hours therefrom, failing which the authority shall remove the same and cost, if any, shall be realised from the petitioners. Meanwhile, status quo, as of today, shall be maintained. It goes without saying that the areas over which the shops allotted to the respective shop owners under the scheme aforesaid shall not be disturbed. Learned counsel for the State submits that for running the shops the Municipality has to issue licence which has not been issued as yet for the year 1996-97. I am not in a position to express any opinion. .It will be open for the authority to proceed in accordance with law.

4. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top