P. Sathasivam, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and final order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Petition Nos. 1873, 1878 and 2101 of 2003 and 310 of 1999 whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petitions and issued various directions to the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior in paragraph 8 of the impugned order for construction of a market complex known as "New Gandhi Market Building".
(3.) Brief facts: (a) According to the Appellants-shopkeepers, after the partition of the country, in the year 1952, the Government constructed Gandhi Market in Gwalior with 250 shops and allotted them to the Appellants herein, who were migrated to India from Pakistan at the time of partition, as tenants/licensees. Each shop covers 60 sq.ft. space + 30 sq.ft. Verandah, in total 90 sq.ft. area and has in front a 5 ft. wide footpath and then a public road. In the year 1975, notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Gwalior to the shopkeepers proposing to increase the rent from Rs. 7/- to Rs. 220/- per month. However, on 18.03.1977, the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior agreed to increase the rent only by 7% from the original rent and also clarified that the enhanced rent would cover area in front of the shops and No. additional charges were to be paid in that respect. On 24.05.1994, the Municipal Corporation passed Resolution No. 40 by which, area of the shop was treated as 90 sq. ft. including the verandah. (b) On 28.02.1999, a public interest litigation petition, being Writ Petition No. 310 of 1999 was filed by a lawyer, G.S. Tomar, against encroachment and erection of wooden stalls by the Municipal Corporation over the land of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board in Nazar Bagh Market, which is described as "the heart of the city". By order dated 15.12.2000, the High Court directed that the said structures erected by the Municipal Corporation would be removed. The petition was listed before the Division Bench on various dates and several directions were issued by the High Court. Thereafter, on 04.02.2003, the High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to furnish information regarding the steps being taken to remove encroachments on public streets. In May/June, 2003, the Municipal Corporation issued notices to the Appellants alleging that they were in illegal occupancy of the front portion of their shops and directed them to remove the alleged encroachments with the threat for demolition of offending construction, if any. Consequently, the shopkeepers of Gandhi Market filed petitions before the High Court praying that they have not made any encroachment of the Verandah. The shopkeepers of various markets also filed writ petitions before the High Court. All the petitions were directed to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 310 of 1999. (c) During the pendency of the writ petitions, the High Court, by order dated 04.07.2003, appointed District Judge (Vigilance) as a Local Commissioner in respect of the illegal encroachments and constructions and directed the Municipal Corporation to continue with the removal of encroachment from the footpaths and public streets which were identified by the District Judge (Vigilance). It further directed that objections, if any, would be submitted to the District Judge. (d) Against the order dated 04.07.2003, some of the shopkeepers of other markets filed Special Leave Petition No. 12446 of 2003 before this Court wherein this Court issued notice and stayed the demolition until further orders. (e) On 25.08.2003, the Local Commissioner submitted his report before the High Court and the High Court directed that it may not be open to the parties to raise any further objections to the report. Against the said order, the Appellants herein filed S.L.Ps. before this Court which were directed to be tagged with the earlier S.L.P.(C) No. 12446 of 2003. This Court disposed of all the petitions on 25.10.2004 by directing the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions as expeditiously as possible after taking into consideration the objections of the Appellants and directed to maintain the status quo as on that date till the disposal of the writ petitions. (f) On 19.01.2005, the High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to submit a plan and map for development of Gandhi Market as a shopping complex having first and second floor and a parking area. As the Appellants agreed to pay Rs. 1 lakh each in four instalments for construction of the first floor shops, the High Court further directed that the amounts deposited by the shopkeepers would be kept in a separate fund by the Corporation and its use would be considered at the time of final hearing. (g) On 08.07.2005, the High Court directed that since the shopkeepers have not deposited the remaining three instalments, they shall pay the same and clarified that in default, the Municipal Corporation is at liberty to remove the shopkeepers who are not willing to deposit their instalments. On 24.03.2006, the High Court further directed that the Municipal Corporation shall auction the shops excluding verandah by an auction notice for the Court to know the actual rental value and submit the price offered and the valuation report of each shop. In pursuance of the said order, the Municipal Corporation published notice but No. one applied for the same. (h) Against the order dated 24.03.2006, the shopkeepers filed applications before the High Court for recalling the order and for refund of the amount deposited by them with interest and the same were dismissed by the High Court on 05.05.2006. Since the shopkeepers were not willing for the reconstruction of the market, the petitions were directed to be listed along with W.P.(C) No. 310 of 1999. The Commissioner was also required to give a proposal for reconstruction. By the impugned order dated 18.01.2008, the High Court disposed of all the writ petitions with various directions as found in paragraph 8 of the impugned order. (i) Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants-shop keepers have filed these appeals by way of special leave petitions before this Court. ;