1.Md. Akhtar Ali 2. Neyaz Ahmad 3. Khalil Ahmad All sons of late Taj v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4073 of 2010 1.Md. Akhtar Ali 2. Neyaz Ahmad 3. Khalil Ahmad All sons of late Taj Mohammad, resident of Baradwari, Sakchi Road, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur … … Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur Versus … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
allotted any shop, they had approached this court in W.P. (C) No. 114 of 2004 seeking a direction upon the respondents to allocate the shops. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.02.2009 and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Consequently, the impugned order has been passed. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned order , this court finds that the learned Deputy Commissioner has expressed his strategic difficulties in connection with allotment of the shops at the place where the petitioners have claimed. This aspect of the matter does not call for any interference. The petitioners do not have a right to have shops allocated in a particular place. 10. However, the learned Deputy Commissioner while considering the claim of the petitioners has referred to the allotments made by the Tata Steel Limited in the year 1980 which did not contain the name of the petitioners and has also recorded that the company had not allotted any shop to the petitioners and there had been no fire in Khatia Market. This court finds that while passing the impugned order, the said Authority has not considered the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-1. In the enquiry report it has been mentioned that the petitioners have been running shop in Khatia market since 1998 and after the removal of the shop, they had become unemployed. It was their further case that in the riots of 1979, their shops were burnt but till date, they were not given any alternative shop. This court is of the considered view that the learned Deputy Commissioner, while passing the order, ought to have considered as to whether name of the petitioners appear in the list of victims who were holding shops as back as in the year 1979 and whether such shops were burnt and also 4 the enquiry report (annexure-1) where the petitioners had produced certain documents in support of their claim. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered while rejecting the claim of the petitioners pursuant to the earlier order passed by this court. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.02.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is hereby set aside to the aforesaid extent and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh reasoned order upon verification of records particularly the list of the victims of 1979 riots whose shops were burnt, and also the enquiry report with regard to the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law. The fresh order be passed within a period of six months from the date of filing of a detailed representation along with a copy of this order, writ records and the documents referred to in the enquiry report (annexure-1) said to have been filed by the petitioners at the time of enquiry. The representation be filed by the petitioners within 2 months from today. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioners at the address to be provided by the petitioners in the representation itself. It the petitioners are found entitled to any shop, the needful be done within a period of 6 months from the date of the
Arguments
--- : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Ms. Rinki Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, Advocate --- 06/24.01.2023 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For quashing of order dated 20.02.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur as contained in Anexure-6/1, whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioners for allocating shops as the petitioners herein are communal riot victims of 1979.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are riot victims of the year 1979 and at the relevant point of time, they were running three shops independently. The learned counsel has referred to the enquiry report as contained at annexure-1 and has submitted that upon enquiry it was found that the petitioners were running shop No. 10,104 and 34 of Khatia market (Government Sakchi Bazar) which was the source of livelihood for them and their family. 4. The learned counsel submits that as per the enquiry report, the petitioners were victim of 1979 riots, but they were not allocated any shop and it was recommended that the petitioners may be allocated appropriate shops. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been representing before the Authorities for allotment of shops but ultimately no shop was allocated. 2 5. He submits that the petitioners had filed a writ petition before this court being W.P. (C) No. 114 of 2004 seeking a direction upon the respondents to allot them one shop each in the Sakchi market. It was found that there were conflicting reports . He submits that the writ petition was disposed of on 11.02.2009 with a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel submits that as per the impugned order as contained in Annexure 6/1 dated 27.03.2010 the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the claim of the petitioners regarding allotment of shop in Shalini market (Khatia market) by expressing administrative difficulties and has also relied upon one communication dated 31.03.2009 issued by the Land and Market Department of Tata Steel, Jamshedpur stating that in the year 1980, the name of the petitioners did not appear in the list of allottees. On the basis of such communication , it was recorded that the Tata Steel had not allotted any shop or stall to the petitioners and there has been no fire in Khatia Market. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it was for the aforesaid authority to consider the earlier enquiry report (annexure-1) and also verify the list of victims of riot of the year 1979, but the same have not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order, rather none of the earlier reports have been considered. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that the question of allotment of shop to the petitioners would only arise if the petitioners were not only riot victims but were also having shops at the relevant place in the relevant point of time during the riot of 1979. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have annexed Annexure-2 which indicates that the name of the petitioners were not included in the list of the victims who were also allottees of the shop at the relevant point of time. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 8. learned counsel for After hearing the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the petitioners claimed to be the victims of 1979 riot and also that 3 they were running their respective shops which got burnt in 1979 riot. Although as per Annexure-2 it has been recorded that name of petitioners did not find place in the list of victims of riots whose shops were burnt, but as per the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-1 dated 24.08.2000 the petitioners claimed to be the riot victims of the year 1979 and also claimed that their shops were burnt in the 1979 riots and as per the enquiry report they relied upon number of documents in support of their claim. When the petitioners were not
Decision
reasoned order. 12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)