PETITIONER: IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RIT PETITION No.24E.i2004 r Umesh Chandra Gupta, S/o. Mewalal Gupta, aged about 38 years, R/o. Baikunthpur, near bus stand, Distt. Koria [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS Collector, Koria Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria [C.G.} ' Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria {0G,} XI-HC—22 amt m ..2.1 .. ‘ mm 19.8.2004 Shri J.K. Shasfr'i, counsel for 1‘ Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawye for ‘rhe Sm‘fe/r‘espondenf No.1. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawai, counsel or respondenf No.2. The pefifioner' has preferred fHs wri‘l’ pefifion wifh the avermems fhm' fhe pefifioner along wifh seven ofher ersons has established ‘K‘heir shops on fhe Nazul iand bearing survey No.102/ in fhe size of 20 x 30 'f‘r. on The road side near ’rhe bus sfcmd a‘r Baikunfhpur Diefricf: Kored. The’S‘ra‘i‘e iand has no? been fransferred +0 The cancerne& Na arr PanchayaT, buf respondenf No.2 has cons‘I-rucfed a shopping comp!ex be;ind fhe above sfafed shops of fhe pefi‘rioner‘ and ofher per-sons Lmder DSMT scheme. Respondenf N02 has prorhised a” fhe previous shopkeepers f ihai' land io allo‘r one shop fo eagh of fhem a? only cosf value. Copy of ihe esoluiion is Annexur'e P-l. Respondenf No.2 offer complefing ihe shopping co plex alloiied shops only fo six previous shopkeepers excepf fhe pe‘iifioner and one Tekchand‘Nagwani. The pefi‘l‘ioner ihrough his real brofher with Tekch nd Nagwoni made’a complainf‘before auihorii‘y sia'iing all above aspec‘l‘s. The au‘lhori‘i’y, faking ac‘l-ion on the complaint is going 1'0 provide one shop o Tekchand Nagwani, but the petitioner is deprived. There are 36 shops in th said shopping complex. Each previous shopkeeper is allotted their shops just ehind his previous shop. Shop No.23 is the shop of shoppim complex which i situated just behind the previous shop of the petitioner tor which he is en Itled *he petitioner is in continuous possession of the land of Nazul making shop ‘e pe‘ri‘rioner. [stow XI-HC-22 mmmw " $Wanw ed ‘fhaf in ‘H'ne year 2001 fhe pe'mioner ‘ had faken on confmcf from Nagar‘ anchayaf righf +0 recover Paryavamn Pravesh Shuik. Copy of The confracf showing Tho? he is a confrootor and had, V faken confmcfs from fhe Nagar Pans ayaf is‘ Annexure R-2 (A). In. para 5 of The rewrn i? has been menfioned fhaf aporf from fha‘r fhe peh’fioner is running a 3hoe cemre in fhe Ambikopur—Mane dragorh Main road sfyled as Babo Shoe 3 Cemre which is owned by pei‘i‘l‘ioner mesh Chand Gupio qhd he is no? running shop near 'ihe shopping complex, e same can be demonsirai‘ed by an appiicafioh fiied by The pefi‘rioner for egis‘rrufiOh before fhe Nagar Panchayo'f, which is marked as Annexure R—2 (B). If has been furfher men‘l‘ioned Thai The pefitioner has ,useo Thai Kachha s op only for fhe purpose of godown. Therefore, he is no? enfii‘ied for ah relief: and The pe’rifion deserves “r0 be ~ dismissed. ‘ Refurn has b_een filEdionvbéhalf ofir-espondem- No.2 mgeen menfioned in para 4 fhaf shop No.23 ’cannof be a'He'Hed To fhe pefifiongr as he is having a Kcchha shop of the new bLfs sfand and he 'is cs con‘i-r'acfor' by prafession, I1- has furfher been men I hove heard ieorned counsel f r fhe parties. i e Learneo counsel for fhe pefi‘l‘ r submi‘rfed fho‘i‘ if sfoy is nof gran‘i‘ed Then ihe righf of ‘i‘he pefi‘iioner will effecfecl as he was already running a shop in from of shop No.23 of ‘i’he sh pping complex. Therefore, ouciion of at leasi shop No.23 be sfoyed. ,On 1he ofher hand, learned eo nsel for respondenf No.2 argued ’rha'l' in The first insfancel fhe peti‘rioner h never made any represenfafion before responden‘i No.2 forallof'l-ing him any shop claiming fha‘i he is roguing o shop in n f e a XI—HC-22 , W was 009’— . m Wan WW ‘ Wm Hféa mm 13‘ém mw ._ 3 ~ V é§a1fa=r3né$r from of fhe shopping complex which hqs been consfr'ucfed. Furfher, he submi‘r‘red Thu? The pe‘rifioner- is alread having a shoe cenfr'e and apart from fha? he is aiso doing “rhe work of conim for, which is eviden‘i from Annexure R- 2 (A). Havmg heard fhe learned couns l for fhe par‘hes having regard 1'0 The fads and Circumstances of The case and navmg perused The record The peTiTioner has noT denied by fihng reJo nder ThaT he Is noT running Baba Shoe CenTre and ThaT he had noT Taken conTr cT for coiiecTion of Paryavaran Pravesh Shulk. This facT has also no? been d nied ThaT The peTiTioner himself never made :a ”represenTaT-ion before respo denT No.2 for alioTTing shop in The shopping ‘compiex, Even Though, an a piicaTion was made by The peTiTioner’s broTher nameiy, Krishna Chand GupTa, a he was noT running any Troliey or shop in fronT of The shopping complex, The efore his appiicaTion was noT aiiowed. ' ThaT applicafion cannoT be Termed as iT as fiied on behalf of The p‘eTiTioner‘ 1n view of The above facTs and ci cumsTances of The case, The peTiTioner l has no prima facie case Therefore Th peTiTion is liable To be dismissed and iT is accordmgly,dismissed 01h 44" AMA/>16“; W Consequenfly, M (W )P No 2137/ ’004 sTcmds disposed o1“ ‘ i Ski/- l L,C.BHADOO Judge Soma [WisW ” L