Letters Patent Appeal No.1130 of 2000 ----- Against Judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1486 of 1998. ----- TARA PD.SHANKER CHANDRAVANSHY @ JAGESHWAR SINGH ---- Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ---- Respondents ----- PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh & Jayanandan Singh,JJ: A decision was taken to remove encroachments from roads. That decision was implemented. As a result, while encroachments were being removed, shops/kiosks installed on roads by a large number of persons had also been removed. Such removal resulted in stoppage of earning of livelihood of such shop/kiosk owners. In that background, the Government decided to construct few permanent shops and to allot them to those shop owners whose shops/kiosks were removed during anti encroachment drive. Fifteen shops were constructed and those were thereupon allotted. On the date, when the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State was inaugurating those shops, a representation was made that many other similarly situated persons also lost their earning of livelihood by reason of removal of their shops/kiosks. That representation resulted in the Government taking a decision to construct ten more new shops and to allot them to those persons who had lost their shops/kiosks at the time when anti encroachment drive was in progress. In order to allot those additional shops an attempt was made to ascertain who are those shop/kiosk owners who lost their - 2 - shops/kiosks as a result of the anti encroachment drive. In that connection, various authorities submitted reports, including the S.D.O. The S.D.O. purported to hold out in his report that based on information received by him, it appears that ten persons namely Vishwanath Chaudhary and others were also running shops/kiosks in the area in question before the anti encroachment drive was undertaken. Vishwanath Chaudhary and others, namely, those 10 persons named in the report of the S.D.O., did not however, produce any document suggesting that in fact they were having shops/kiosks immediately before the anti encroachment drive was undertaken or that their shops/kiosks have been removed in course of anti encroachment drive. The report of the S.D.O. being based on hearsay, no reliance had been placed thereon by the District Magistrate, who was authorized to allot those ten additional shops. He found that six persons were genuinely having shops/kiosks in the area in question and their shops/kiosks were removed in course of the anti encroachment drive. Accordingly six out of ten additional shops had been allotted to those six persons. In addition one more allotment was made on the basis of compassion. On behalf of those ten persons, a writ petition was filed, where it was contended that at least one of them, namely Jailal Yadav, has a receipt, which would show that he was present in the area in question as a shopkeeper prior to the anti encroachment drive. This receipt was considered by the learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition. The learned Judge opined that the receipt depicts grant of licence for a particular year, that is to - 3 - say, for the year 1985-86, and after expiry of that year, permission to continue to act on the basis of such licence came to an end and therefore there is no evidence to suggest that those ten persons were or even the said Jailal Yadav was having shops or a shop, which happened to be removed during the anti encroachment drive. We think that when three of the shops remained to be allotted, and as there was a piece of evidence in the form of a licence granted in favour of Jailal Yadav in the year 1985-86, i.e. before the anti encroachment drive was under taken, permitting Jailal Yadav to have a shop in the area in question, it was obligatory on the part of the District Magistrate to consider the case of Jailal Yadav, on the basis thereof and the same having not been done, we allow the appeal to that extent and direct the respondent District Magistrate to re-consider the case of Jailal Yadav and to inform Sri Jailal Yadav the result of such re-consideration within a period of three months from the date of service of a copy of this order along with the representation to be made by Jailal Yadav, annexing a copy of the said licence. ( Barin Ghosh, J.) (Jayanandan Singh, J.) Patna High Court Dated 3rd July,2008 Arvind/N.A.F.R.