IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6668 of 2010 1. YAMUNA RAM, S/O LATE DHARIKSHAN RAM, R/O MOHALLA- BHAWANIPUR ZIRAT,P.S.- MOTIHARI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 2. BASUKI NATH SINGH, S/O LATE INDRASAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-MALKAUNIA,P.S.-MUFFASIL, MOTIHARI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. 3. RAGHUNATH RAUT, S/O LATE LAKHAN RAUT, R/O VILLAGE- BHAWANIPUR ZIRAT, WARD NO.11, P.O.& P.S. CHHATAUNI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. 4. ISHWARI PRASAD, S/O GOBARDHAN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE - BHAWANIPUR ZIRAT,P.S-MOTIHARI, DISTRICT -EAST CHAMPARAN. 5. NAGINA PRASAD, S/O BUNILAL MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE - BHAWANIPUR ZIRAT,P.S-MOTIHARI, DISTRICT -EAST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. THE MOTIHARI NAGAR PARISHAD THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN,MOTIHARI NAGAR PARISHAD, EAST CHAMPARAN,MOTIHARI. ----------- 2. 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the Motihari Municipality. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notice dated 31.12.2009 in pursuance of a decision of the Motihari Municipality dated 11.11.2009, cancelling the settlement of their shops made to them by the Municipality. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are in occupation only of the area settled to them for the shops in accordance with law. Denying that they have encroached any area of a pavement in front of the shop, it is submitted that they are also not discharging water on to the 2 pavement. If the petitioners are in settlement of a shop premises under specified terms and conditions, the agreement appended at Anenxure-3 itself provides that for violation of the terms and conditions the settlement can be cancelled. Presently, the notice issued to them does not raise any such ground. Undoubtedly, the petitioners cannot be permitted to encroach on any area of the pavement in front of their shop. If they have done so, the authorities are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving them due opportunity and time to remove the encroachment, if any. If the petitioners are discharging water from shop on to the pavement, and the shops having been settled by the Municipality, perhaps it is the duty of the Municipality to provide proper drainage. The Court is satisfied that in absence of any allegations of violation of the terms and conditions of settlement, cancellation of the allotment on ground of any alleged encroachment on the pavement or discharge of water cannot be sufficient to cancel the settlement. Both the wrongs are completely amenable to rectification should the municipality wish to do so and the present order 3 shall not inhabit or restrict their powers in that regard. The impugned orders dated 11.11.2009/31.12.2009 are therefore set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)