'2^f ^: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT.B1LASPUR Coram: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra IVIJshra& Hon'ble Shri R.N. ChandrakatLj.y Writ ADpeai !S!o;115 of 2011 Appellant Petitioner Pradeep Yadav, S/o Shri B. Yadav, » aged about 33 years, R/o Q. No. 17 Street 24 Sector 4 Bhail Durg (CG) Kriti Lal,S/o Fagua,aged about 51 years,R/o Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi, Ruabandha Sector BhiJai Durg (CG) Santosh Yadav, S/o Late Shri Lal Ji Yadav, aged abouf |33 years, R/o Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi Ruabandha SectorBhilai Durg (CG) Baban Yadav, S/o Hardev Yadav, aged about 45 years, R/o Chhattjsgarh Sabji Mandi Ruabandha, Sector Bhilai Durg (CG) Steel Authorityof India, Through - The Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG) The Manager, Town Servjces Department, Bhilai Steet Plant Bhilai, Distt..Durg (CG) The Sr. Estate Manager (Shops) Estate Department-Shops Section, Bhijai Steel Plant, BhiJai, Distt. Durg (CG) Present: Shri Vipin Tiwari,counsel for theappellants. 1. 2. 3. 4. Vs. Respondents 1. 2. 3. ORAL JUDGMENT (25.03.2011) , .Theappellants' writ petitjon for jssujng of direction to the respondents to consider their case for allotment of shops at Chhattisgarh Sabji Mandi, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai has been djsmissed bythe impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants' name in the survey list prepared on 28.08.1999 find place as sellers of vegetables by encroaehing upon the land of the respondents. Alt the persons whose names are mentjoned in the list have been issued offer letters for allotment of shops. -5- -^ 'f' ii There are 132 persons who were running shops at the place as encroachers whereas, 156 shops hav^ been constructed on the disputed premises for allotment. However, the appellants have been denied allotment. The names of the appellants do not figure in the first two lists prepared on 01.12.1998 and 15.02.1999 as at the time of survey, the appellants were not present and their shops wereclosed. However, learned Single Judge, bythe impugned order, dismissed thewrit petition only on the ground that their names do not figure in the earlier 2 lists prepared after survey as occupants. 3. Heard. 4. Learned Single Judge considering that the names of the appellants were not included in thesurvey list prepared on the basis of spot surveymadeon 01.12.1998 and 15.02.1999 and also considering the denial ofthe respondents in this regard held that upon initial survey made, the appellantswere notfound to be occupants or running business of selling vegetables in the disputed premises. Their names have been added in the 3rd list preparedon 28.08.1999 a^ the appellants may have occupied the place thereafter so as to find place in the list. It has further been observed that the claim of the appellants that they were occupying the place and running their business even on the day when initial surveys were made is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, after careful examination ofthe pleadings of the respective partiesand documents annexed with the pleadings and also the impugned order, we are ofthe opinion that learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition with the aforesaid observations. 6 We find no substance in this writ appeal. The same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge rT Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge