Allahabad High Court
Susheela Devi vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 31 July, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153091-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22727 of 2023
Petitioner :- Susheela Devi
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Jitendra Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition is preferred for quashing order dated 19.4.2021 passed by Senior Divisional Engineer, Head Quarter, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow and further commanding respondent nos.3 and 4 to permit the petitioner to run the shops in question.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is running a shop at Naugarh Railway Station since 1987. One railway employee namely, Ram Lakhan Chaubey took Rs.10000/- from the petitioner in 1973 for providing Plot no.73 area 100 square feet and deposited the said money in the name of his minor son namely, Sudhir Chaubey. Thereafter, possession of the land was given to the petitioner with consent of Station Master, Naugar and Section Engineer, upon which the petitioner established his shop in question and started selling insecticides. Till 1990, the petitioner ran his shop without any hindrance but in the year 1990, he was asked to vacate the same as it was allotted in the name of Sudhir Chaubey. When he raised objection, he was asked to move an application for transferring the ownership of the shop and thereafter deposit the rent in his name. But when the concerned authorities tried to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in question, he filed a suit for interim injunction numbered as Suit No. 148 of 1990 wherein order dated 25.1.1991 was passed restraining the concerned authorities from dispossessing the petitioner from the shop in question. Thereafter, Ram Lakhan Chaubey filed Civil Appeal no.105 of 1995 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.9.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner moved several representations for transfer of the plot in question in his favour but no heed was paid by the concerned authorities. In the year 2014, the dispute again arose when Sudhir Chaubey demanded money from the petitioner and also pressurized him for vacating the shop in question. On 8.2.2021, the railway authorities passed order for transferring the shop in question in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order, respondent no.5 moved an application before respondent no.4 and thereafter order was passed on 18.2.2021, staying order dated 8.2.2021 passed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 19.4.2021 the concerned authority have passed an order cancelling the transfer of ownership in favour of the petitioner, which has been assailed in this writ petition.
4. We had the occasion to peruse the Circular dated 21.11.2006. It would be appropriate to reproduce the same as under :
"In terms of Board's letter under reference, Railway Board had communicated its decision to permit one time opportunity for change of name of allottees. In compliance to para (IV) of above Board's letter the detailed modalities of security deposit, need of collecting money upfront etc were to be worked out by Railway with concurrence of Associate Finance, keeping in mind the local conditions.
The modalities of security deposit, need of collecting money upfront etc. have now been decided with concurrence of headquarter finance and are enclosed in annexure (one pages) for implementation of above policy of Board. In order to achieve the enhanced target of Rs. 17 crore from earnings through land utilization for N.E. Railways, all out efforts need to be made by all three divisions and Dy. CE/GA."
5. Further, on a bare perusal of impugned order dated 19.4.2021, we find that the competent authority has cancelled the allottment in favour of the petitioner due to administrative reasons and proceeded to observe that in view of Para (1) C and Para (IV) of Circular dated 21.11.2006 the shops shall be auctioned afresh and allotted to the highest bidder duly giving first right of refusal to the present occupant.
6. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that right may be accorded to the petitioner to participate in the auction proceedings and in the light of aforesaid provisions at the time of settling the bid, the petitioner may be given preference.
7. In so far as the present prayer is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that once the authority itself has proceeded to observe and taken cognizance of Circular dated 21.11.2006, we hope and trust that definitely the benefit has to be extended in the light of aforesaid Circular, as expeditiously as possible, in case, the petitioner participates in the auctions proceedings.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.7.2023
Manish Himwan
