Allowed

Mohan Das Manikpuri, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jul 2022WPC/143/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed Nagar Panchayat to re-do shop allotment proceedings at current market value due to over 10-year delay. Ordered preferential treatment for displaced petitioners and mandated conclusion within 3 months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.3 to re-do shop allotment proceedings afresh at current market value with preferential treatment for petitioners within 3 months.

Mohan Das Manikpuri, Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 143 of 2021

¶5

Mohan Das Manikpuri, S/o Late Shri Janak Das Manikpuri, Aged About 55 Years R/o Tehsil And Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶6

Jitendrasingh Thakur, S/o Shri Dharamraj Singh Thakur Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Tehsil And Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶7

Mohammad Inayat, S/o Mohammad Iqbal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Tehsil And Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶12

Nagar Panchayat, Pandariya Through Chief Municipal Officer, Tehsil And Police Station Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.3	: Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶16

04/07/2022

¶17

The present is a second round of litigation. The matter pertains to the allotment of shops constructed by the respondent No.3- Nagar Panchayat , Pandariya, District Kabirdham. The petitioners are persons who were earlier running small Gumthies at Kawardha road, Pandariya.

¶18

¶19

For the purpose of beautification and widening of the road, the petitioners were removed from the said place. At the time when the petitioners were being removed, the respondent No.3- Nagar Panchayat had taken a policy decision to construct shops and allot the said shops to those persons who have been displaced from the said location on preferential basis. The respondent No.3, thereafter on 25.02.2012 invited application s for allotment of shops. That after completion of the proceedings, vide order dated 22.05.2012 allotments were made in favour of 8 persons, who were respondents No. 4 to 12 in the earlier round of litigation i.e. WPC No. 2192/2012. The said writ petition finally stood allowed vide judgment dated 25.06.2014 and the High Court while allowing the writ petition has held as under:

¶20

“17. In the result, the petition is allowed. The decision taken by respondent-Nagar Panchayat and allotment made on 22.05.2012 in favour of respondents No. 4 to 12 are declared illegal and hereby set-aside. Though liberty is reserved to the Nagar Panchayat to send the proposal for sanction to the State Govt., whereupon the State Govt. shall examine the proposal on the aspects of requirement of procedure laid down under the law including other aspects referred to hereinabove. If the State Govt. approves the proposal, it would be open for the petitioners to challenge the decision in accordance with law. No orders as to costs.”

¶21

As a consequence of the said judgment, the allotment made to the respondents No. 4 to 12 in the said writ petition stood cancelled. Thereafter, since there was no further development, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:-

¶22

10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the petitioners the shops for their rehabilitation with accordance to the rehabilitation policy.

¶23

10.2) That, the application of the petitioners may be reconsidered in the allotment of shops and rehabilitation in the same place where petitioners conducted their business earlier.

¶24

The respondents have entered appearance and have filed their response and in their response the two respondents have taken a stand that in

¶25

¶26

terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 25.06.2014 in WPC No. 2192/2012, the respondent No.3-Nagar Panchayat have already sent a proposal to the State Government in respect of their decision as they have taken in the year 2012 and the said proposal is still pending consideration before the State Authorities and therefore the respondent No.3 could not take a decision any further. The State Government also have taken a similar stand in their reply that they have filed.

¶27

All said and done what is relevant to be taken note of at this juncture is that there was an earlier allotment made in favour of 8 persons by the respondent No.3 and the said allotment stands cancelled vide judgment dated 25.06.2014 in WPC No. 2192/2012. What the Hon'ble High Court at that point of time intended was that since the earlier allotment to the 8 persons was being set-aside, the liberty was reserved for the Nagar Panchayat to proceed afresh by a fresh proposal to the State Government and subject to the approval of the State Government a fresh decision to be taken so far as the allotment of the shops are concerned.

¶28

Undoubtedly, the petitioners herein in terms of the policy at the relevant point of time were to be given a preferential treatment so far as the allotment of shop is concerned. From the time of the earlier allotment, which has been quashed by the High Court , till now it is more than 10 years time. The shops have already been constructed and it is lying unused and the respondent No.3 also have not been able to rip the fruits of the said shop after they were to be given on rent. Now more than a decades time has since elapsed and down the line the market value of that property also has risen up considerable.

¶29

Given the entire facts and circumstances of the case to put an end to the dispute in the present writ petition, this Court in the interest of justice is of

¶30

¶31

the opinion and view that ends of justice would meet if the respondent No.3 is directed to re-do the whole proceedings so far as the allotment of shops on the Kawardha road is concerned afresh at today's market value/rate as the case may be. While deciding the same, it would be left for the respondent No.3 to ensure that the petitioners who were displaced at one point of time from the place where the shopping complex has been constructed, as to how they can be provided with the preferential treatment and by providing the same the entire proceedings be concluded at the earliest within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶32

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed

¶33

¶34

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶35

Ved

Mohan Das Manikpuri, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Das Manikpuri, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs Kunwar Singh Dewangan

Central Board of Trustees Vs Smt. Premila Naidu

Central Board of Trustees, Vs Jivan Lal Sannad

Narendra Kumar Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs G.S.Gavel

Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs Shiv Kumar Singh