AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 252 wordsSudhanshu Dhulia, J
Petitioners’ shops which are under the management of Nagar Nigam, Kotdwar are likely to be demolished for widening of the road. Aggrieved,
the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court.
During the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners gave a statement before this Court that petitioners are willing to
demolish their shops upto 4 feet from the front.Â
As far as this suggestion is concerned, it is acceptable to the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 for the time being for the proposed widening of
the road. However, this shall have no consequence if for further public utility or use, the entire shops or portion thereof needs to be demolished. In
such an eventuality, appropriate orders can always be passed in accordance with law. However, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that in case the petitioners’ shops are to be demolished completely, efforts should be made to rehabilitate the petitioners elsewhere. This
seems to be a fair proposition and therefore in the event of total demolition of building rehabilitation of petitioners be considered in accordance with
law. It is made clear that directions are only for consideration in the event of total demolition. It is not to be considered as a right of the petitioner.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed. It is made clear that the above order is being passed with the consent of learned counsels for
the parties.
Â
Â