(1) WP. 3167.2009+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3167 OF 2009 Rahim Shaikh S/o Rafiyoddin Shaikh PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.553 OF 2010 Shivaji Gulab Sonar and ors. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITION NO.545 OF 2010 Sunil Ramdas Jagdale and ors. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Agrawal, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the respondent no.3 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 30TH JUNE, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The petitioners in the present Petitions claim that they ought to be allotted a shop in the shopping complex which is proposed to be constructed on C.T.S. no.123 at Amalner town. The petitioners (2) WP. 3167.2009+ claim that all of them have shops in this area and are carrying on their business in C.T.S. no.123. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to be allotted shops in the new shopping complex, which is to be constructed on the final plot no. 123 under the rehabilitation scheme. 2. The learned Advocate for the respondent no.3 points out that all the petitioners are encroachers on public land and have no right to the allotment of any shop in the proposed shopping complex. He points out that the association representing the petitioners had filed the Writ Petition being Writ Petition no.2937 of 2004. This Writ Petition has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 6.6.2007. The Division Bench considered the earlier orders passed by this Court and the fact that the civil suit had been filed by the Association and dismissed the Petition. 3. It appears that the civil suit has also been dismissed. Mr. Golegaonkar appearing for the respondent no.3 further points out that the petitioners have all been removed from the public (3) WP. 3167.2009+ road to implement the orders passed in Writ Petition no. 3670 of 2003 on 12.2.2004. This Court has directed the Municipal Council, the Collector and the Executive Engineer of the P.W.D. to prepare an action plan for removal of the encroachments on public land. Thereafter, the Division Bench by its order dated 8.3.2004 has perused the action plan and the respondents in that Petition were directed to proceed in accordance with the action plan for removal of the encroachments as per the schedule provided. The respondent no.3 has thus proceeded to evict the petitioners based on the aforesaid orders of this Court. 4. We have perused the list of encroachers, which has been filed together with the affidavit in rejoinder in Writ Petition no.545 of 2010. The names of these petitioners are at serial no. 87 to 96. Each one of them has therefore been declared an encroacher. 5. In these circumstances, in our opinion, no case has been made out by the petitioners for allotment of any shops to them. In case the (4) WP. 3167.2009+ petitioners are interested in availing of the shops, which may be constructed, it would be open to them to participate in any public auction that may be held. In any event, in case the petitioners desire to stake their claim in the shops on the basis of a promise supposedly made to them, they may approach the Civil Court for appropriate orders. However, the Civil Court will decide the suit, if any filed by the petitioners, on its own merits. Petitions are dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp