Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 August, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15874 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ramesh Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Satyavrat Sahai
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16061 of 2021
Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Kesharwani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Singh
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15875 of 2021
Petitioner :- Govind Kaur
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Satyavrat Sahai
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15907 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Karishma Kesharwani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta,Manoj Kumar Singh,Satyavrat Sahai
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15909 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vikas Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Satyavrat Sahai
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16009 of 2021
Petitioner :- Veer Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. As these petitions raise common issues, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
2. We have heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents; Sri S.D. Kautilya, assisted by Sri Satyavrat Sahai, for the Nagar Nigam Allahabad (Prayagraj) and its Municipal Commissioner; and have perused the record.
3. In brief, facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows. The petitioners were separately served notices by the Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj to remove their occupation/shops to facilitate widening of streets as part of preparation for the Kumbh Mela and the smart city project. The petitioners along with other similarly situated persons separately filed writ petitions in this Court. Those petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench vide order dated 21 March, 2018 extracted below:-
"Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Mishra and Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no.2 - State and Mr. S.K. Kautilya, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 - Nagar Nigam.
The challenge raised in this bunch of writ petitions is similar. All petitioners challenge notices, whereby they are asked to remove themselves from the premises (shops), to facilitate widening of streets as part of preparation of the forthcoming Kumbh Mela and in view of the fact that the city of Allahabad has been declared as smart city. It appears, and it is not in dispute that shops were allotted by executing deeds of conveyance in favour of original allottees between footpaths and drains. Petitioners claim that deeds of conveyance were executed in respect of shops which are subject matter of these writ petitions. Some of the petitioners are subsequent purchasers and they have purchased the shops from original allottees. It is made clear that we have not examined title of petitioners in the instant bunch of writ petitions.
It is not in dispute and as contemplated by Section 285 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, that the owner of any building or land is entitled for compensation, whenever such building or land is required for public street under Sections 280, 281, 282 or 283. Counsel appearing for the Nagar Nigam, after inviting our attention to these provisions, submits that if petitioners are having ownership/title over the shops in dispute, the Municipal Commissioner shall determine compensation to be paid to them within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order or the Nagar Nigam shall offer them alternative premises/site. In this backdrop, counsel appearing for the petitioners do not press these petitions and seek direction to the Municipal Commissioner to either pay compensation to petitioners in accordance with law or to offer them alternative premises/site within a period of two months.
In the circumstances, we dispose of these writ petitions, as not pressed. We direct the Municipal Commissioner to either pay compensation to petitioners in accordance with law, if they are found to be owners of shops in dispute or to allot them alternative shops/site, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this order alongwith documents showing their ownership/title within 15 days from today. We hope and trust that the Municipal Commissioner shall pass appropriates orders within the stipulated time.
It is needless to mention that this order shall not preclude the concerned authorities from commencing the work of construction/widening of streets where the shops in dispute are situated and, for that purpose, if the shops are required to be demolished, they may proceed to do so. "
4. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioners were offered alternative site/shop at Jhunsi. Not agreeable with the offer, the petitioners again filed writ petitions in this Court. Those petitions, led by Writ - C No.43642 of 2018, were decided by a judgment and order dated 12 April, 2019. The operative portion of the order dated 12 April, 2019 is extracted below:-
"In the result, writ petitions are allowed with costs. We quantify cost of Rs.5,000/- to each set of petition, against respondents 3 and 4 of Petition 1. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. Municipal Commissioner now shall proceed to determine compensation payable to petitioners after examining whether petitioners, coming before him, are valid owners/transferees of shops in dispute and derive their right from allottees under initial Deed of Conveyance executed by Government of India or any subsequent document of transfer executed by vendees/purchasers under Deed of Conveyance executed by Government of India, and have legal right to claim compensation. It is also provided, as also already directed by this Court vide judgment dated 21.3.2018 that instead of compensation it will also be open to respondents 3 and 4 to allot any other shop/site to petitioners, if it is suitable and agreeable to petitioners and that will settle all other claims with regard to disputed shops, which have been demolished by respondents."
5. Pursuant to the order dated 12 April, 2019, the Municipal Commissioner separately examined the claim of the petitioners and by separate impugned orders dated 15 September, 2020 reiterated the offer of alternative site at Jhunsi to the petitioners.
6. The impugned orders dated 15 September, 2020 have been separately challenged by the petitioners in these petitions on the ground that the claim of the petitioners was required to be decided strictly as per the direction given by this Court dated 12 April, 2019 passed in a bunch of writ petitions led by Writ-C No.43642 of 2018, extracted above, where under the Municipal Commissioner was required to determine compensation payable to the petitioner after examining whether the petitioners were valid owners/transferees of the shops /constructions demolished and only if they were agreeable to allotment of an alternative site, the alternative shop/site could have been offered in lieu of compensation. Whereas, here, the petitioners had already spurned the offer of an alternative site/shop at Jhunsi, thus, reiterating the said offer is in the teeth of the direction of this Court dated 12 April, 2019 and is, in fact, contemptuous.
7. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment and order of this Court dated 10 June, 2021 rendered in Writ-C No.8580 of 2021, which is on identical facts. The operative portion of the order dated 10 June, 2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.8580 of 2021 is extracted below:-
"Grievance raised by the petitioner is that though he is held entitled for a shop at a suitable place, akin to the place from where he was displaced, yet a shop in the undeveloped suburbs of the District at Jhunsi has been offered which is not agreeable to the petitioner. It is urged that despite him not agreeing for the said shop his claim for compensation is not settled. The petitioner accordingly seeks direction to either pay compensation or to allot the shop at a place at par with the value of demolished shop in terms of the order in Writ C No. 43642 of 2018.
Though learned counsel for the respondent Corporation who appear on advance notice take exception to the relief sought; however, he does not dispute about the order passed in Writ C No. 43640 of 2018 which was made applicable to the petitioner in Writ C No. 10001 of 2019 and that these orders have attained finality. Since the impugned allotment order is not in consonance with the directions in Writ C No. 43642 of 2018, the same is set aside.
The Corporation is under an obligation, if they are not inclined to allot a shop at a place akin to the place from where the petitioner's shop was demolished, then shall settle the compensation in lieu thereof. Let the steps be taken within ninety days from the date of communication of this order.
The petition is disposed of finally on above terms. No Costs. "
8. Per contra, Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for Nagar Nigam and its Municipal Commissioner, submitted that the question of payment of compensation would arise if the land over which the shop of the petitioner was located was petitioners' own land and not State land. He further submits that under the earlier Division Bench order dated 21 March, 2018, extracted above, the Municipal Commissioner had the option either to pay compensation or to offer an alternative shop/site and, therefore, if the Municipal Commissioner offered an alternative shop/site, that being in compliance of the earlier order dated 21 March, 2018, his action cannot be treated as contemptuous.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, we find that the order dated 12 April, 2019 passed by the Division Bench in the subsequent round of litigation in effect supplants the earlier order dated 21 March, 2018 and, therefore, the rights of the parties would be governed by the subsequent order dated 12 April, 2019, which is not stated to be set aside or stayed by any court. Under these circumstances, as the direction in the order dated 12 April, 2019 required the Municipal Commissioner to first examine the rights of the claimants and then to determine compensation, the offer of alternative site/ shop straightaway in lieu of compensation, without the consent of the claimants (the petitioners herein), is not justified.
10. As by the impugned orders, the Municipal Commissioner has straightway offered alternative site/shop to the petitioners, without obtaining their consent, and has failed to determine the compensation payable as was required to be done under the direction dated 12 April, 2019 of this Court, the orders impugned, dated 15.09.2020, are liable to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside. All these writ petitions are allowed. The Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj is directed to pass a fresh order determining the compensation payable to the petitioner as per the earlier direction of this Court dated 12 April, 2019 (supra). The aforesaid exercise shall be completed, preferably, within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is filed in the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj.
11. There is no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021
Bhaskar
