GULAB CHAND Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHILAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.