Malik Ram Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Present writ petition has been filed seeking for following reliefs :-

“a. This hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or suitable direction to the respondent â€" authorities

interfering in the matter to restrain the respondent- authorities from demolition of the present shops constructed at â€" Purani Hatari, Nawagarh,

District Bemetara,(C.G.)

b. May kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.04 for allotment and possession of the shops to the petitioners at â€" Purani Hatari, Nawagarh

after its complete constructions.

c. To allow any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper with cost of petition.â€​

It appears that the claim of the petitioner based upon certain offers that were made at the first instance by Nagar Panchayat, Nawagarh in the year

2009. The claim of the petitioner is that the Nagar Panchayat, Nawagarh had then decided to construct a shopping complex and fixed the rate of one

shop i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/-. The petitioners have paid Rs. 4000/- for the registration of their name and thereafter they paid Rs. 40,000/- each as the first

installment. However, there has been no further development except for part construction being made by the Nagar Panchayat, Nawagarh at the said

spot.

The grievance of the petitioners now is that they have come to know that Nagar Panchayat, Nawagarh has since decided to stop the project and

are demolishing the entire shopping complex and converting it into a park. Thereby the petitioners would be put to substantial loss both so far as being

deprived of getting the shop and also their investment made without any return. That there is no undertaking given by the Nagar Panchayat,

Nawagarh in respect of the what happens to be the amount of money invested by the petitioners.

Perusal of the record and pleadings would show that only a few people seem to have deposited the first installment as the details of the others are

not available with the petition. Moreover, all these petitioners are operating their shops or business at different locations and there is nothing in written

that the petitioners would be offered a shop in the said complex or at least is not reflected in the pleadings available. It is also not the case of the

petitioners that in the eventuality of the respondents developing the said area in a Park the petiitoner would be rendered shopless or without any source

of livelihood as they seem to be operating their business at different locations.

Given the said facts, the only remedy which the petitioner as of now can have is to approach the respondent no.4 by way of a detailed

representation in respect of their claim and also in respect of whatever investment that they have made with the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4

in turn is expected to take an appropriate decision taking into consideration the entire ground realities including the money belonging to the petitioners

which is lying with the respondent no.4 since long.

Let an appropriate decision be taken at the earliest in this regard.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands accordingly disposed of.