The New Bombay Stores Represented By Its Partner Namely Jayesh Panchamiya vs. State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy Commissioner

Held

The High Court held that since the parties, specifically the petitioner and Respondent No. 5, had resolved their disputes through mediation and filed a joint compromise petition, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the settlement. The Court noted that the terms of settlement were detailed in paragraph 6 of the interlocutory application. The Court did not delve into the legality or justification of the initial action challenged by the petitioner (the letter dated February 25, 2022) as the parties had amicably resolved their differences. The primary finding was that the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 was settled, rendering the original prayers in the writ petition moot. The Court's decision was based on the mutual agreement of the parties. The interlocutory application (I.A. No.220 of 2024) was also disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, The New Bombay Stores, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated February 25, 2022, issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Law and Order, informing that action would be taken for demolition of an old building and construction of a new one. The petitioner sought to prevent forceful dispossession from Shops No. 8 and 9 in the "Narbheram Building" under the guise of demolition due to dilapidated condition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 (Narbheram Leasing Company Private Limited) resolved their disputes through mediation. A joint compromise petition was filed outlining the terms of settlement, which included the petitioner continuing possession of Shops No. 8 and 9 while Respondent No. 5 would demolish the existing structure (except these shops) and undertake new construction. The settlement also detailed arrangements for repairs, new shop allocation, rent, and other related matters.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action proposed by Respondent No. 2, as communicated by the letter dated February 25, 2022, for demolition and reconstruction of the building, and the consequent threat of dispossession of the petitioner from Shops No. 8 and 9, is legal and justified. (Question of law and fact, concerning the authority of Respondent No. 2 and the process followed). Petitioner's arguments (implied by the prayer for quashing the letter and restraining dispossession): The petitioner contended that the action was forceful, illegal, and undertaken under the garb of demolition of a dilapidated building, aiming to dispossess them. They sought to protect their possession and prevent demolition without due process. Revenue/State's arguments (implied by their role as respondents and the letter issued): The respondents, through the Additional District Magistrate, indicated an intention to proceed with demolition and reconstruction, suggesting a perceived need for such action, likely related to the condition of the building. The specific legal basis or justification for this action was not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but it was the action under challenge. 2. Whether the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 through mediation is binding and should be given effect to by the Court. (Question of law, concerning the enforceability of mediated settlements in writ proceedings).