PRAKASH CHANDRA PADHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 are small traders. Their case is that they carry on business of vegetable vending over a vacant land named as 'HATTA' situated over Plot No. 3085 pertaining to Khata No. 545 in Hinjilicut within the jurisdiction of Hinjilicut N.A.C. A notice was published in the Oriya daily "The Anupam Bharat" on 3.2.2005 and notices dated 1.2.2005 were also issued to the petitioners individually, notifying them to vacate the aforementioned land by 5.00 P.M. of 3.2.2005, failing which, they would be evicted from the said land. The notices have been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-3 series and the publication of the said notice has been annexed as Annexure-4. The petitioner No. 9 appears to be a Registered Association, registered under the Societies Registration Act of which the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 and others are the members.

(2.) The petitioners claim that shop rooms of various sizes exist over the said land which are in possession of some of the petitioners and the others who carry on their business of selling vegetable in the said Hatta. In the year 2002, there was an attempt to evict the petitioners from the said land for which many of them protested and an agitation was carried out. Ultimately, an understanding was arrived at, as stated in the letter dated 6.9.2002 of the Tahsildar-cum-Part Time Executive Officer, N.A.C., Hinjilicut annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application. It is claimed by the petitioners that in the said understanding, the Hinjilicut N.A.C. clearly stated that both the demands raised by them are already fulfilled and no further demolition has been undertaken or will be undertaken in the vegetable market subject to the condition that there should not be any further construction by the vegetable vendors. It was also undertaken that immediately the evicted vendors may shift to the Regulated Market Committee yard if they so desire to carry on their day-to-day business or subsequently, when the N.A.C. will construct stalls, they will be allotted on priority basis. The petitioners allege that the N.A.C. has not undertaken any such construction of stalls and no steps have been taken asking the petitioners to shift to any such stalls being allotted in their favour on priority basis as undertaken by the N.A.C. Being aggrieved by the notices issued against the petitioners and the publication made in the newspaper, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Hinjilicut N.A.C., inter alia, stating that a Regulated Market Committee has been established under the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 at Hinjilicut and the petitioners can vend their vegetable in the said market. As a matter of fact, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the said market has organized a "Krusak Bazar" in its main market yard with an estimated project cost of about Rs. 69,00,000/- provided by the D.R.D.A., Chhatrapur and R.M.C., Hinjilicut jointly. In view of the provisions of the said Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, the N.A.C. could not issue any licence to such vendors like the petitioners and the petitioners have absolutely no right to carry on their business in the aforesaid Hatta commonly known as "Hatapada". The N.A.C. has also stated in its counter affidavit that a project has been duly approved for construction of a market complex over the disputed plot and the N.A.C. has received some amount from the Government in September, 2003 towards the said project. It has been further stated that taking into consideration of such matters, the Collector, Ganjam being the Chairperson to implement the said scheme known as "Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns" by his letter dated 27.1.2005 issued direction through the Sub-Collector, Chhatrapur to take necessary action in that regard by evicting encroachments over the municipal land in the disputed plot. Allegations have been made by the N.A.C. that some of the petitioners along with others have occupied municipal land unauthorisedly by constructing temporary sheds and in order to remove such encroachment, notices were issued.