1 2025:CGHC:3369 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1783 of 2011 1 - Sunil Kumar Daga S/o Late Shri Vithaldas Daga, aged about 50 years, R/o Shop No. 12 Civic Centre, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, registered under the Indian Companies Act of Government of India with its head quarters at Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, through the Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant (SAIL), Bhilai, District Durg (CG). 2. Assistant General Manager, Town Services Department (Shops), Bhilai Steel Plant (SAIL), Bhilai, District Durg (CG). 3. The Chief Town Administrator, Bhilai Steel Plant (SAIL), Bhilai, District Durg (CG). 4. Smt. Chandra Narayan Das, W/o Late Shri H. Narayan Das, R/o Shop No.11, Civic Centre, Bhilai, District Durg (CG), through her general power of attorney holder Shri Hemant Bamwani, S/o Late Shri H. Narayan Das, R/o Shop No.11, Civic Centre, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh K. Bole, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.01.2025 Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 24/2/2011 (Annexure P/1) and 25/2/2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.2 Assistant General Manager, Town Services Department (Shops), Bhilai Steel Plant (SAIL), Bhilai, District Durg ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the present case are as under:- • Shop No.12, Civic Centre, Bhilai, District Durg was allotted to one Shiv Das Daga by the respondent SAIL in the year 1959. The family members of Shiv Das Daga operated the business under the name and style of M/s. Dwarika General Electric Stores. Shop No.11 was initially allotted to late H. Narayan Das, the husband of respondent No.4/Smt. Chandra Narayan Das. Between the two shops, there is an adjoining staircase admeasuring 25 x 14 sq. ft. Initially, the additional area of 25 x 14 sq.ft. was allotted to the owner of Shop No.12 as per the allotment order dated 19.4.1982. The petitioner raised the construction over the additional area. The husband of respondent No.4, H. Narayan Das passed away on 19.5.1986. • Respondent No.4 moved an application before the respondent, Bhilai Steel Plant on 8.7.1986, requesting to review its earlier decision regarding the allotment of additional space at the rear side of the common staircase adjoining Shop No.11 & Shop No.12, on this a decision was taken by the Bhilai Steel Plant in favour of respondent No.4 on 24.6.1987. In the years 1999-2000, 3 the passage between the main shop and the go-down was offered and allotted to the shopkeepers of Civic Centre, Bhilai. At that time, respondent No.4 again made a representation against the allotment of passage to the petitioner vide representation dated 16.1.2001 and filed a writ petition (WP No. 701 of 2001) before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2007 and respondent No.4 was permitted to make a representation before the Competent Authority for allotment of additional space to shop No.11. Respondent No.4 submitted her application on 16.11.2007. Bhilai Steel Plant vide its letter dated 1.11.2008 informed respondent No.4 that her representation would not be considered. • Respondent No.4 subsequently filed WP(C) No.2281 of 2009 challenging the order dated 1.11.2008. The Bhilai Steel Plant vide order dated 28.2.2009 issued a fresh licence in favour of the petitioner. WP(C) No.2281 of 2009 was disposed of vide order dated 31.8.2010 directing the respondent authorities to reconsider the representation of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Respondent No.2 in its letter dated 13.12.2010 invited representations from both the petitioner and respondent No.4 to reconsider their grievances. The respondent authorities vide order dated 24.2.2011 modified the earlier allotment order dated 9.6.1982 and allotted half of the additional space to respondent No.4 directing the petitioner to hand over the possession within 15 days. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 24.2.2011 and 25.2.2011 by filing this petition. -4- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the additional land measuring 25 x 14 sq. ft., was allotted to the allottee of Shop No.12 vide order dated 19.4.1982, and it was never objected to by late Shri H. Narayan Das allottee of Shop No.11. He would further submit that the family members of late Shri Shiv Das Daga took possession of the additional land and raised construction as per drawing and specifications outlined in the license. He would further contend that the Assistant General Manager, Town Services Department (Shops), Bhilai Steel Plant, modified the order dated 9.6.1982 by cancelling the allotment of additional space at the rear side of common staircase adjoining Shop Nos.11 & 12 by allotting area of 20 x 30.9 sq.ft., and instead, by order dated 25.2.2011, the petitioner was directed to handover the possession of the additional space 5 x 30.9 sq.ft. to respondent No.4 within a period of 15 days. He would contend that the orders dated 24.2.2011 & 25.2.2011 are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the order dated 31.8.2010 passed by this Court. He would further argue that during his lifetime, the husband of respondent No.4 never raised any objections thereby waiving his right, and after his death, his wife cannot claim the allotment of additional space. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would contend that a recommendation was made by the “Shop Allotment Committee” on 23.12.1975 according to which, 50% of the additional land behind the staircase may be allotted to the adjoining shopkeepers. It is also recommended that if any of the parties is not interested, the other person would be allotted full 5 space. They would also submit that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in WP No. 701 of 2001 & WP(C) No.2281 of 2009, after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties, a decision was taken by the authorities of Bhilai Steel Plant. They would further contend that the petitioner has no absolute right over the open land. It is also contended that respondent No.4 also runs a shop, and during the lifetime of late Shri H. Narayan Das, the claim could not be made. However, after his death, his wife made a representation before the respondent authorities for the allotment of additional open land. It is argued that respondent No.4 filed a petition, and directions were issued to the Steel Authorities to consider her representation. They would further argue that the decision was taken in accordance with the existing rules and submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. A perusal of the order (Annexure-P/1) would show that out of 25 x 30.9 sq. ft. of additional space, the petitioner has been allotted 20x 30.9 sq.ft. and the order directs the vacation of possession of the remaining area 5 x 30.9 sq.ft. The Bhilai Steel Plant authorities have not passed any order in favour of respondent No.4. The letter dated 10.4.1982 (Annexure-P/3) would show that the additional space of 25 x 14 sq. ft. was in possession of the petitioner and was being used as a go-down. The petitioner was permitted to construct a temporary structure according to the drawing and specifications. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and Steel Authority of India Limited on 29.6.1982. The -6- agreement dated 25.9.1970 would show that the husband of respondent No.4 was allotted shop No.11 along with additional space measuring 15 x 14 sq.ft. Respondent No.4 made a representation for the allotment of additional space at the rear side of the common staircase adjoining on 8.7.1986. When no action was taken, WP No. 701 of 2001 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2007, directing the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) to consider and decide the representation within a period of two weeks. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 1.11.2008 and the SAIL Authorities declined to consider the representation of respondent No.4. On 28.2.2009, a fresh license was issued in favour of the petitioner, and thereafter, the petitioner challenged the decision taken by the SAIL authorities dated 1.11.2008 by filing WP(C) No. 2281 of 2009. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 31.8.2010, directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation in accordance with law and pass a detailed reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 7. The respondents vide order dated 24.2.2011 modified the allotment of additional space in favour of the petitioner, reducing it from 25 x 30.9 sq.ft. to 20 x 30.9 sq.ft. and vide order dated 25.2.2011, he was directed to handover the remaining area of 5 x 30.9 sq.ft. to the Steel Authority of India Limited. 8. The additional area has been allotted according to the recommendation and existing rules. Respondent No.4 failed to claim allotment of additional space when the shop was allotted to 7 her husband and the entire additional area was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner never waived or relinquished his rights. After the death of H. Narayan Das, his wife moved an application for the allotment of additional space. The claim of the petitioner was within the four corners of the existing rules and recommendations, therefore, the authorities considered her application. The Coordinate Bench also issued directions to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of respondent No.4. 9. The petitioner cannot claim right over the property on the basis of possession. The shops were allotted according to the rules, and the allottees were required to follow the rules framed by the Steel Authority of India Limited. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 are running shops, and both shopkeepers need additional space to run their businesses. The respondent authorities have reduced only 5 x 30.9 sq.ft. of the area from the allotted area. The petitioner cannot be permitted to claim adverse possession or title, as this is not a civil suit. 10.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the SAIL authorities. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi