BUDHRAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Correctness and sustainability of the order dated 12.02.2021 is put to challenge in this appeal, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and further issued a direction to Respondents 1 to 3 to ensure completion of formalities of handing over possession of the shops (Gumtis) situated near bus stand at Baloda Bazar to the respective allottees in terms of Annexure P-1.

(2.) Facts projected by the appellants in the writ petition are that the appellants/ petitioners are doing small business of cobbler, barber, tailoring, beetle shop etc. by constructing small Gumtis/ shops near bus stand area at Balodabazar, district Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. Respondents 1 to 3 with an object and view for development of town Baloda Bazar have issued notices to the appellants in the month of January 2010 to vacate their shops, remove encroachment and further assured them to provide newly constructed shops on the same place. Appellants have removed their structure, upon which, Respondent 3 constructed 14 new shops were not allotted to the appellants, but Respondent 3 had issued a notification dated 24.12.2010, inviting applications from the interested persons for allotment of shops. The action taken on the part of Respondent 3 was objected by the appellants, by filing a written objection dated 28.12.2010 before the Additional Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Baloda Bazar. The Additional Collector, district Baloda Bazar directed to consider the objection raised by the appellants but without considering the same, proceedings of allotment have been concluded vide Annexure P-1 notice/ order. New shops are constructed under the Mukhyamantri Swavlamban Yojana (for short "the Yojana") only to accommodate the appellants/ petitioners but instead of allotting 14 shops to the 14 ousted persons from the locality, Respondent 3 has allotted the said shops to Respondents 4 to 16.

(3.) Respondent 3 resisted the objection of the appellants/ petitioners by filing counter affidavit stating that the appellants/ petitioners were encroachers over the land, they cannot claim it as a matter of right for allotment of the shops at the same place where shops are constructed by Respondent 3. Shops in question have been constructed under the Yojana (Scheme) to allot it to unemployed interested youths for self-employment. Allotment of the shops has been made by the Committee constituted and the allotment was made strictly in accordance with the scheme formulated. Annexure P-3, which was relied upon by the appellants/petitioners, has been stated to be a forged and fabricated document by filing counter affidavit. It was pleaded that no such letter was written and copy of the said document Annexure P-3 is also not available on record. There is no signature of Chief Municipal Officer and there is no dispatch number. The said document has been filed only to mislead the Court.