SHIBU DEBNATH Vs. AGARTALA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the Agartala Municipal Corporation-respondents.

(2.) The petitioners namely Sri Shibu Debnath (the petitioner No.1), Sri Kinkar Das (the petitioner No.2), Sri Harihar Pal (the petitioner No.3), Sri Apurba Deb (the petitioner No.4), Sri Bimal Mitra (the petitioner No.5), Sri Umesh Rabidas (the petitioner No.6), Sri Saudagar Shau (the petitioner No.7), Sri Prabhat Dhar (the petitioner No.8), Sri Manik Roy (the petitioner No.9), Sri Manik Miah (the petitioner No.10), Sri Samir Pal (the petitioner No.11) by means of this writ petition, have urged this court for directing the respondents to rehabilitate them allotting the shops at Radhanagar Shopping Complex which has been constructed and is controlled by Agartala Municipal Corporation. Further, the petitioners have urged this court to compensate them for the damages that they have suffered during the eviction drive which took place on 19.11.2019. The relevant fact in the context in short is that the petitioners were running their small businesses from the shop/premises/structures along the road in the Radhanagar-Buddhamandir area. Even they had trade licenses issued by the Agartala Municipal Corporation on various dates. Those licenses are available at Annexure-1 to the writ petition and show that the petitioners were carrying various small trades from those shops.

(3.) In the year, 2019, Agartala Municipal Corporation found that for those illegal shops, lying along the very important road of the city, which is popularly known as VIP road, the traffic is seriously obstructed causing inconvenience to the people at large. On repeated surveys, it was found that all the shops along with the said road were on illegal occupation of the government land. Even some shops had the electricity line from the State Electricity Corporation. Agartala Municipal Corporation took a conscious decision that they would evict all the shopkeepers from those illegal shops/structure and demolish the shops permanently and nobody would be allowed to run business along the road side for widening of the road. Accordingly, all the shopkeepers were given notice for vacation. The respondents have, in their reply, clearly stated that 19 shops, during the survey or at the time of serving notices, were found closed. As a result, before demolition, the respondents pasted the notice of eviction on those 19 shops including 11 shops of the petitioners, in presence of one Executive Magistrate. One of such notices has been annexed by the petitioners at Annexure-10 of the writ petition. The said notice dated 31.10.2019 being relevant in the context is extracted in the full-form: