GIRWAR SINGH Vs. NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since an identical question involves in both the appeals, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiffs (appellant Girwar Singh has preferred First Appeal No. 62 of 2014 and appellant Nazeem Khan has preferred First Appeal No. 63 of 2014) have preferred both the appeals against the judgment and decree dtd. 20/12/2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Balod (CG) in Civil Suit Nos.20-A/13 and 21-A/13 whereby the suits filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for allotment of shop in their names, registration possession of Shop Nos. 1 and 2 situated at Commercial Complex, Ward No.24, Pratiksha Bus Stand, Opposite Sulabh Sauchalay, Dallirajjhara and for restraining the respondent No.1 from initiating the auction proceeding have been dismissed.

(3.) The brief fact, as reflected from the record are that the appellants/plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Balod mainly contending that the defendant No.1 namely Nagar Palika Parishad, Dalli-rajhara has issued an advertisement in daily newspaper on 26/8/2009 for auction of the suit property of 14 shops situated at Ward No.24, near Pratiksha Bus Stand, Opposite Sulabh Sauchalay, Dallirajjhara as per the right of occupation accordingly, earnest money has to be deposited on 30/9/2009 and auction has to be conducted on 1/10/2009 at 2.00 pm. The plaintiffs have deposited Rs.3,000.00 each as security amount/auction money. The minimum price was determined by the respondent No.1 was at Rs.2,00,000.00. The appellant and two persons have also participated in the auction. The plaintiffs offered maximum price to the tune of Rs.2,27,000.00, in the auction and auction was closed at Rs.2,27,000.00 and the rent was fixed at Rs.1,500.00. As per advertisement, 1/3rd amount has to be deposited after accepting the auction and entire amount has to be deposited within 15 days from the date of acceptance of the bid then only shops have to be allotted. It has been further contended that as per the Rules when plaintiff went to office of Municipal Corporation, Dalli-rajhara, for depositing 1/3rd amount the Chief Municipality Officer has informed them that construction of shop has not been completed, when the construction will be completed they will intimate the appellant with regard to deposit the amount. Somehow it has been dragged and ultimately on 24/4/2010 the appellants/plaintiffs have moved applications for allotment of shops and to deposit the amount but their request was not acceded and again the plaintiffs/appellants have submitted their applications on 3/8/2010. They have also made a complaint before the Collector, Durg, and it has been informed to the Collector that vide letter dtd. 15/9/2010 as per instructions received by the State Government they will construct the work and do the needful. Thereafter, it has been brought to the notice of the appellants/plaintiffs that some persons have illegally occupied the shops and started doing their business, therefore, they sought information under Right to Information Act and it has been informed that on 9/9/2009 the matter will be placed in the meeting of the Council and any action will be taken as per decision of the committee. It has been informed that no one has taken possession of the suit property and if anybody has taken the property of suit shops, they will be evicted as per law and the said shops shall be taken back. The appellants/plaintiffs have sent a notice to defendant No.1 on 20/7/2012 through their Advocates which was replied by the defendant No.1 on 26/7/2012 intimating that on 21/6/2012, the Government has rejected the proposal made by the council and allotment be treated as null and void. It has also been informed to the plaintiff that the Government has directed for conducting fresh auction proceedings as per Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Transfer of Immovable Propety) Rules 1996. It has been contended that before auction the Municipal Corporation, Dallirajhara has already allotted 21 shops in which Pramod Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Pushpa Devi have been allotted shops by the process of auction on less offered price in comparison to offer made by the plaintiff. The appellants/plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract, therefore, proposed auction proceeding may be stayed and on the above factual matrix the appellants have prayed that the suit shops No. 1 and 2 be allotted in their names and the defendant no. 1 and 2 be also restrained from initiating further auction proceeding. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed applications for grant of injunction.