Jharkhand High Court
Pawan Kumar Pandey vs Damodar Valley Corporation (Dvc) ... on 28 January, 2020
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1137 of 2019
1. Pawan Kumar Pandey
2. Ashok Prasad
3. Pradip Kumar
4. Lakhanlal Barnwal
5. Rajendra Prasad Sao
6. Babloo Kumar
7. Krishna Deo Prasad
8. Shubhankar Bose ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) through its Chairman, Kolkata
2. Chief Engineer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura, Bokaro
3. Deputy General Manager, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura,
Bokaro
4. Estate Officer, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station (CTPS), Damodar
Valley Corporation, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Tapas Kabiraj, Advocate
-----
Order No. 04 Dated: 28.01.2020
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith handover the possession of the plots to the petitioners which were allotted to them during the year 2003-04 and to allow them to construct the respective shops on the said plots.
2. The case of the petitioners is that in the year 2003-04, the respondent no. 4 - the Estate Officer, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station (CTPS), Chandrapura issued different allotment letters in favour of the petitioners for running their respective shops. Letter No. CT/DGM- 47/590 dated 06.02.2019 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 - the Deputy General Manager (Adm.), DVC, CTPS, Chandrapura (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition) confirms the fact that the management of the DVC had allotted the said land for running shops during the year 2003-04 and the DVC had never objected the construction against the said allotments. Though in pursuance of the said allotment letters, the petitioners also deposited the security amount, however, the possession of the shops could not be given to them as the allotted plots were under encroachment. According to the petitioners, after several years, they were permitted to make their 2 respective construction for carrying on business over the allotted plots. However, as soon as they started raising their structures for running their respective shops, those were arbitrarily demolished under the orders of the respondent no. 2 - the Chief Engineer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura, Bokaro without issuing any prior notice to them. In the said circumstance, the respondent no. 2 may be directed to give physical possession of the plots allotted to them in the year 2003-04.
3. Mr. Tapas Kabiraj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that it is not clear from the contents of the writ petition as to under whose order, the petitioners started making construction over the plots in question. Even if it is assumed that the initial allotment was made in favour of the petitioners in the year 2003-04, no subsequent order in this regard was issued by the competent authority of the DVC/CTPS. However, if the petitioners prefer fresh representation(s) before the respondent no. 2, the same will be duly considered and appropriate decision will be taken by the concerned authority.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioners are at liberty to prefer fresh representation(s) before the respondent no. 2 on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation(s), the respondent no. 2 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their representatives shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of representation(s).
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish