Vijay Mehta vs. State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy Commissioner

Held

The High Court held that since the parties had resolved their disputes through a mediation process and filed a joint compromise petition, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the settlement. The terms of the settlement, detailed in paragraph 6 of the interlocutory application, governed the resolution of the dispute. These terms included agreements on the construction of a new building in two parts, temporary relocation of the petitioners to Shop No. 10, the condition of the temporary premises, internal changes allowed to the petitioners, continuation of independent electricity connections, allotment of a new shop premises of 1000 square feet with specific frontage and depth on the basis of a tenancy/lease agreement after construction, visibility and access to the new shop from the main road, provision of an internal staircase, sharing of building plans, rent payment, and various other covenants related to the tenancy, taxes, and renewal of the lease. The Court noted that the interlocutory application for compromise also stood disposed of.

Facts

The petitioners, Vijay Mehta and Dhiren Mehta, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated February 25, 2022, issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Law and Order, which indicated potential action for demolition of an old building and construction of a new one. They also sought to restrain respondents from forcefully dispossessing them from Shop Nos. 2 and 3 in the "Narbheram Building" under the guise of demolition due to the building being dilapidated. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners and respondent No. 5 (Narbheram Leasing Company Private Limited) resolved their disputes through mediation. A joint compromise petition was filed detailing the terms of settlement, which included provisions for temporary relocation, new construction, lease agreements, rent, and other conditions governing the parties' rights and obligations regarding the property.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action contemplated by the letter dated February 25, 2022, issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Law and Order, for demolition and reconstruction of the building, and the purported threat of forceful dispossession of the petitioners from their shops, is legal and justified. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the action threatened by the respondent authorities was illegal and sought to quash the letter and restrain dispossession. They contended that the building was not in such a dilapidated condition as to warrant immediate demolition and that their possession was being threatened without due process. Respondent's contention: The respondents, through the compromise petition, indicated an agreement to resolve the disputes. The judgment does not explicitly record separate arguments from the revenue/state respondents beyond their participation in the compromise. However, the underlying dispute involved the condition of the building and the rights of the parties concerning its redevelopment.