Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

, Annexure-5.

4. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 11, 12 the authorities of IRCON International Ltd., it appears that while raising the Railway Overbridge, Motijheel the authorities of IRCON realized that without removing the 49 shops of Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 the petitioners and others situate in the alignment of the Overbridge raising of the Overbridge may not be possible and accordingly, requested the District Administration to get the shops removed in order to facilitate raising of Railway Overbridge. In the light of the request made by IRCON authorities, District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur convened a meeting of the parties concerned on 09.04.2007 in which it was unanimously decided that IRCON would proceed with the foundation work for raising 49 shops below Railway Overbridge, as would appear from the minutes of the meeting, Annexure-5. In Paragraph 6 the authorities of IRCON stated that raising of Railway Overbridge, Motijheel has not only been completed but the said Overbridge has also been commissioned and is operational. The authorities of IRCON further stated that they have completed the foundational work for raising the 49 shops in the light of the resolution of the meeting dated 09.04.2007, Annexure-5. In Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit authorities of IRCON stated that it is clear from perusal of Annexure-5 that the compensation amount for the shops so given by the District Administration to the Corporation was to be deposited in the separate account of Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur and would be spent by the Municipal Commissioner for raising the shops. In Paragraph 8 the authorities of IRCON referred to letter of the Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur bearing No. 589 Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 dated 07.06.2011, Annexure-A and submitted with reference to its contents that the estimated cost for raising the shops has been received in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur and proposal for the departmental transfer of Government land has already been sent by the District Land Acquisition Officer. In Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit the authorities of IRCON stated with reference to Annexure-5 that it is manifestly clear that the said 49 shops is required to be raised by the Corporation on the map, model prepared by IRCON. In the same paragraph it is further stated that it is for the Corporation to decide the Agency from whom it wishes to get the said shops build but the authorities of IRCON are always ready to give suggestions and to prepare map and model for the proposed shops as per resolution taken in the meeting, Annexure-5. In Paragraph 10 IRCON authorities stated that it is erroneous on the part of the Corporation authorities to assert in their counter affidavit that IRCON would build 49 shops as it was only authorized to lay foundation of the proposed 49 shops which has already been laid. In the same paragraph, it is further asserted that it is for the District Administration and the Corporation to choose the Agency from whom they wish to get the said shops raised. In Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit IRCON authorities referred to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.05.2005, Annexure-B arrived at by and between the Ministry of Railways, Government of Bihar and Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 IRCON wherefrom it is apparent that it was the responsibility of the State Government to make available the land free from encroachment/ structures for raising the Overbridge and to hand over the same to IRCON. It was also the responsibility of the State Government to arrange rehabilitation of the encroachers/ structures.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015

21. Corporation and its Commissioner, respondent nos. 7, 8 stated in Paragraph 5 of their counter affidavit that the 49 shops were initially raised on the land, which was allotted/ settled with the shopkeepers by the Corporation and the shopkeepers raised the shops at their own cost as per direction of the then Administrator of the Corporation in the year 2007. In Paragraph 6 of the said counter affidavit Corporation and its Commissioner stated that for development of Muzaffarpur town decision was taken to raise Railway Overbridge at Motijheel Railway Crossing where 49 shops were situate and to facilitate raising of the Overbridge the District Administration, Muzaffarpur removed the shops as the shops were causing hindrance and obstructing the alignment of the Overbridge. IRCON under letter dated 01.02.2007, Annexure-A requested the District Administration to assure the shopkeepers that they would be provided alternate space in the vicinity or below the Overbridge. In Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit further statement has been made that a meeting has been convened by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur on 09.04.2007, minutes thereof are contained in Memo dated 09.04.2007, Annexure-B, whereunder IRCON undertook to construct 49 shops for the displaced shopkeepers underneath the Overbridge and the compensation in lieu of the shops would be given to the corporation which would be deposited in a separate account of the District Land Acquisition Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 Officer, out of which the expenditure would be made by the Municipal Commissioner for raising the shops underneath the Overbridge. In Paragraphs 9 to 15 of the counter affidavit Corporation and its Commissioner informed this Court about the prayer made in the connected Writ Petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7151 of 2012 and the orders passed by this Court in the said writ case including the fact that IRCON laid the foundation for raising the 49 shops below the Overbridge as per the decision taken in the meeting dated 09.04.2007. In Paragraphs 12, 13 of the counter affidavit reference is made to the Inspection Report of Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur contained in Memo No. 1423 dated 16.08.2013 wherein it was specifically pointed out taking into consideration the traffic problem, inconvenience caused to the public and that it may not be proper to raise the shops beneath the Overbridge, Amended Plan, Annexure-E proposed for raising 49 shops vide supplementary affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No 7151 of 2012 in February, 2014. Petitioners, however, opposed any amendment in the construction plan and wanted the shops to be completed immediately as they were rendered jobless for long and the High Court being not satisfied about the delay caused in raising the shops directed under orders dated 10, 25.02.2014 that the construction work for raising 49 shops beneath the Overbridge be expedited and completed within six months where foundation has already been laid by IRCON Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 for raising the shops. In Paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it is stated that as agreed in the meeting dated 09.04.2007 the shops for the displaced shopkeepers would be raised beneath the Overbridge where foundation of the shops has already been laid by IRCON in pursuance of the said decision. In Paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit further statement has been made that prior to the construction of the shops consultation was made with the District Administration wherein concerns were raised with regard to traffic issues but the petitioners were opposed to the idea of any amendment in the construction site plan which was brought to the notice of the Court by supplementary petition also filed in the same writ case. In Paragraph 16 the answering respondents expressed their readiness to comply with the order/direction passed by the High Court.

25. From the pleadings made by the parties in the two writ petitions as also in the counter, supplementary counter and rejoinder affidavit, it is evident that the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 7151 of 2012 and others, in all 49 persons, raised their shops on the municipal land situate by the side of Motijheel, Kalambagh Road on both sides of railway level crossing Gate No. 101, 101A on Muzaffarpur-Samastipur Rail Section, which is one of the busiest market area in the town of Muzaffarpur. In order to ensure smooth flow of vehicular traffic in the market area it was proposed to raise Railway Overbridge at the aforesaid two railway level crossing. In order to facilitate raising of the Railway Overbridge at the railway crossing, it was necessary to remove the 49 shops as the shops were affecting the alignment of the Overbridge, which was objected to by the 49 shopkeepers. IRCON, the agency entrusted to execute the contract for raising the Overbridge, requested the District Magistrate under letter dated 01.02.2007 that the space below the bridge portion specially Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 from the railway crossing to Town Police Station vertical clearance whereof from road to bridge is about 6 meters and the open space available below the bridge portion can be earmarked for the displaced shop owners and assurance to that effect be given to the shop owners by the District Magistrate that alternative space will be provided to them in the vicinity or below the bridge portion. In the light of the request of IRCON, District Magistrate sought instruction from the Corporation. Corporation in the meeting of its Board of Corporaters dated 05.04.2007 resolved to allot shops to the 49 affected shopkeepers beneath the bridge portion of the Railway Overbridge. Minutes of meeting dated 05.04.2007 was duly communicated to all concerned under Memo No. 609 dated 12.04.2009. In the light of the resolution of the Board of Corporaters the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur convened a meeting of the District Administration, IRCON, Corporation and the representative of the affected 49 shopkeepers on 09.04.2007 in which it was agreed that the 49 shopkeepers should remove their shops to facilitate raising of the Overbridge and the affected shopkeepers shall be accommodated in the open space beneath the Overbridge. The proceeding of the meeting was communicated to all concerned under Memo No. 230 dated 09.04.2007. Even after commissioning of the Railway Overbridge 49 shopkeepers were not provided with the shops beneath the Overbridge or in its vicinity, Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 which prompted the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 7151 of 2012 to approach this Court in representative capacity on behalf of 49 shopkeepers and this Court asked the respondents to file counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit with reference to the resolution dated 09.04.2007, Annexure-5 it is categorically stated that IRCON would build 49 shops for the displaced shopkeepers beneath the Overbridge and the compensation in lieu of the shops would be given to the Corporation, which would be deposited in a separate account in the office of District Land Acquisition Officer, out of which the expenditure would be made by the Municipal Commissioner for building the shops beneath the Overbridge. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that till date of the counter affidavit neither any amount has been handed over to the Corporation nor any shop has been raised by IRCON, as such, the shops have not been settled with the petitioners and other shopkeepers. The authorities of IRCON stated in their counter affidavit that while raising the Overbridge IRCON realized that it may not be possible to complete the Railway Overbridge over Railway Crossing Gate Nos. 101 and 101A without removing the 49 shops of the petitioners and others and requested the District Administration to get the shops removed to facilitate raising of Railway Overbridge, pursuant whereto the 49 shops were removed and the compensation amount for the shops so given by the District Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 Administration to the Corporation was to be deposited in a separate account of Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur, which amount would be spent by the Municipal Corporation for raising the shops. In Paragraph 10 IRCON authorities categorically stated that it is erroneous on the part of the Corporation Authorities to assert in their counter affidavit that IRCON was required to build the 49 shops as it was only authorised to lay foundation of the proposed 49 shops, which has already been laid by IRCON. In the same paragraph, it was further asserted that it is for the District Administration and the Corporation to choose the Agency from whom they wish to get the said shops raised. In this connection, IRCON referred to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.05.2005, Annexure-B arrived at by and between the Ministry of Railways, Government of Bihar and IRCON wherefrom it is apparent that it was the responsibility of the State Government to make available the land free from encroachment structures for raising the Overbridge and to hand over the same to IRCON. It categorically stated that it was the responsibility of the State Government to arrange for rehabilitation of the encroachers/ structures.

38. Corporation and its Commissioner, respondent nos. 7, 8 also filed counter affidavit stating in Paragraph 5 that the 49 shops were initially raised on the land, which was allotted/ settled with the shopkeepers by the Corporation and the shopkeepers raised the shops at their own cost as per direction of the then Administrator of the Corporation in the year 2007. In Paragraph 6 of the said counter affidavit Corporation and its Commissioner stated that for development of Muzaffarpur town decision was taken to raise Railway Overbridge at Motijheel Railway Crossing where 49 shops were situate and to facilitate raising of the Overbridge the District Administration, Muzaffarpur removed the shops which were causing hindrance and obstructing the alignment of the Overbridge. IRCON under letter dated Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 01.02.2007, Annexure-A requested the District Administration to assure the shopkeepers that they would be provided alternate space in the vicinity or below the Overbridge. In Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit further statement has been made by the Corporation and its Commissioner that a meeting was convened by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur on 09.04.2007, minutes of the meeting is contained in Memo dated 09.04.2007, Annexure-B, whereunder IRCON undertook to construct 49 shops for the displaced shopkeepers underneath the Overbridge and the compensation in lieu of the shops would be given to the corporation, which would be deposited in a separate account of the District Land Acquisition Officer, out of which the expenditure would be made by the Municipal Commissioner for raising the shops underneath the Overbridge. In Paragraphs 9 to 15 of the counter affidavit Corporation and its Commissioner informed this Court about the prayer made in the Writ Petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7151 of 2012 filed by few of the displaced shopkeepers and the different orders passed by this Court in the said writ case including the fact that IRCON laid the foundation for raising the 49 shops below the Overbridge as per the decision taken in the meeting dated 09.04.2007. In Paragraphs 12, 13 of the counter affidavit reference is made to the Inspection Report of Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur contained in Memo No. 1423 dated 16.08.2013 wherein it was specifically pointed out taking Patna High Court CWJC No.6332 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 into consideration the traffic problem, inconvenience caused to the public and that it may not be proper to raise the shops beneath the Overbridge, Amended Plan, Annexure-E proposed for raising 49 shops vide supplementary affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No 7151 of 2012 in February, 2014. Petitioners of C.W.J.C. No 7151 of 2012 and other shopkeepers, however, opposed any amendment in the construction plan and wanted the shops to be completed beneath the Overbridge immediately as they were rendered jobless for long and the High Court being not satisfied about the delay caused in raising the shops directed under orders dated 10, 25.02.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No 7151 of 2012 that the construction work for raising the 49 shops beneath the Overbridge be expedited and completed within six months. In Paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit further statement has been made on behalf of the Corporation that prior to the construction of the shops consultation was made with the District Administration wherein concerns were raised with regard to traffic issues but the petitioners and other displaced shopkeepers were opposed to the idea of any amendment in the construction site plan, which was brought to the notice of the Court by supplementary petition also filed in the same writ case. In Paragraph 16 the Corporation authorities, however, expressed their readiness to comply with the order/direction passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.