ASHRAF Vs. NAGAR KSHETRA SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The record of these writ petitions are such that the Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter for the simple reason that it neither agrees with the petitioners nor with the respondents.

(2.) The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shashi Nandan, and Mr. Y.K. Saxena, on behalf of the Town Area, Bidhuna, District Etawah, at length. All the writ petitioners raise common questions.

(3.) On facts on which there is no issue is that the petitioners had their Khokhas, that is to say kiosks, on the pavement of the Achhalda-Bidhuna road and on the Fast State Bank of India read. The administration decided to remove the kiosks from the road side and make permanent constructions. For this it took money for those who were to squat on the road side. The plot within the confines of these two roads is Nazul land. On this there is a plan to construct a commercial complex. In so far as the commercial complex on this plot is concerned, as long as it is in accordance with law, the Court is not concerned with this. But the petitioners before the Court, at least some of them, submitted end they are not at issues with the respondents, the local administration that in line of the space they occupied on the road side, money was taken from them for the purpose of constructing permanent shops and grant them a 30 years lease. All the petitioners have not been able to show their allotment orders but this aspect is not, relevant as the Court is neither giving any order against any petitioner individually except that the matter does not call for any interference in a prerogative writ jurisdiction.