Dinesh Prasad vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioners are agriculturists who were allotted shops and vacant land on rent in the Bazar Samiti for selling vegetables and fruits. Their original shops were destroyed by fire. Subsequently, in 2013-14, vacant land was allotted to them on rent by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Biharsharif, on which they constructed their shops and godowns at their own expense. They were later allotted additional land for extension, upon which they made further constructions. The petitioners are licensed traders, paying GST, sales tax, and other applicable taxes and licenses. They rely on this business for their livelihood and have taken loans for it. The SDO, Biharsharif, issued a notice dated 14.08.2021, directing the petitioners to remove their self-made constructions and vacate the godowns by 28.08.2021, stating that the vacant land was required for a development project under the Smart City Project.

Held

The Court held that the interest of the petitioners stands protected in view of the guidelines issued by the Secretary, Agriculture Department, contained in Annexure A of the supplementary affidavit. These guidelines stipulate that before removing valid allottees from their land/shop/godown for the Smart City Project, new constructions of a similar type must be made, and such allottees must be shifted to these newly constructed structures on a provisional basis. The Court expected the SDO, Biharsharif, to act in accordance with these guidelines and make alternative arrangements for the valid allottees before removing them from their land/shop/godown. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 14.08.2021, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti, Biharsharif, directing the petitioners to remove their self-made constructions and vacate their godowns, is liable to be quashed? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they are valid allottees of the land and have made substantial constructions at their own cost. They submitted a supplementary affidavit highlighting guidelines issued by the Secretary, Agriculture Department, which mandate that before removing valid allottees for a Smart City Project, alternative construction of similar type must be made, and the allottees should be shifted provisionally. They contended that their interest is protected by these guidelines. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the notice issued by the SDO indicates that the land is required for development under the Smart City Project.