GAYASI RAM Vs. ZILA PARISHAD, AGRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, bhumidhar of plot numbers 162, and 155 has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 30th April, 1988 passed by Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Parishad, as the order refusing to grant permission to petitioner to hold cattle fair and cattle Market on his own land is contrary to the bye - laws and is based on irrelevant considerations.

(2.) Admittedly, the Zila Parishad granted a licence in favour of petitioner on 2nd Dec., 1987 for holding a cattle market on Wednesday and Sunday and a cattle fair for 13 days from Asharh Sudi Parwa to Sharavan Badi Parwa. In March 1988, the licence was suspended on interference of State Government against which petitioner came to this Court by way of writ petition No. 722 of 1988 which was disposed of at the admission stage and a direction was issued to the Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Parished to decide die application afresh after giving an opportunity lo petitioner and opposite party who holds cattle market and cattle fair in the vicinity and decide if there was any clash between the days of two cattle market. The bench observed :

(3.) Law on this aspect has been settled by a series of decisions of this Court. Right of a Bhumidhar to use his land in a manner in which he considers appropriate cannot be disputed. But this right can be regulated in public interest. For instance the authorities may not grant licence if the holding of another market or fair may create law and order problem. Guidelines issued in this regard permit grant of another licence if distance between the two plots is four kilometers. This too can be waived if the days of holding cattle market or fair is different and there is no likelihood of breach of peaces, bye - laws of Zila Parishad provide for obtaining of licence and registration only. it does not lay down the circumstances in which permission can be refused. Therefore, except the law and order problem the opposite party could not refuse the permission to petitioner to hold cattle market or cattle fair in this own land. Obviously because such a provision would have violated fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen under Art. 19 of the Constitution.