Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Two petitioners, one claiming to be representing the Hatia Railway Market Committee and another in his individual capacity had approached this Court seeking to raise grievance in respect of members of Hatia Railway Bazar Samiti who are said to be the allottees of the shops made on railway plot no. P/1 to P/67 of the Hatia Railway Market Ranchi. Petitioners have made following prayers:- (i) to direct the respondent no.4 to accept the amount paid by the allottees up to December,2006 as full and final as the respondents cannot charge the arrear amount with increased rate retrospectively. (ii) Not to increase the occupancy charge of renewal of lease of the respective shops arbitrarily. (iii) they have prayed for restraining the respondents from taking coercive steps like evicting the shop owners from their respective shops.
(3.) On 19.6.2008 the matter was taken up and an interim order was passed directing maintenance of status-quo. The matter thereafter remained pending and the respondent-Railway appeared and filed counter affidavit. The respondent-Railway also raised the plea objecting to the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner who claims to have filed the writ petition in a representative capacity. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to produce letter of allotment which was not produced by the next date and again on 28.1.2016 they were directed to comply with the order dated 6.1.2016. By way of supplementary affidavit filed on 15.2.2016 the allotment of plot through letter dated 17.4.1976 in the name of Ram Pravesh Singh and another license for temporary occupation of the Railway land vide Annexure-9 in the name of Rajendra Prasad Singh dated 6.1.1983 were brought on record. No other allotment letters of any such members were brought on record. Taking into account all these facts and also that there was an interim order operating, the matter was posted for consideration on 2.3.2016, when the following order was passed:- Petitioner herein claims to be representing the individual shop allottees under Hatia Railway Market. It is not in dispute that the rate of rent remained frozen @ Rs. 1100/- per year since 1975 till it was enhanced in 2006 @ Rs. 5500 per year with retrospective effect from April, 2004. 2. When the matter was taken up earlier on 19.6.2008, an interim order was passed directing maintenance of status-quo as existing on the said date. Respondents allege that except 7 persons out of 67 rest have not paid even the existing rate of Rs. 1100/- per year to the Railways thereafter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enhanced rate is arbitrary and dependent upon the value of the land. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Railway submits by referring to the Circular dated 10.2.2005 (Annexure-1) to their counter affidavit dated 19.9.2012 that it is based upon the uniform yardstick at a defined percentage applicable through out India. 5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner fallen back upon the interim order of status-quo to defend non-payment of existing rate till date but that cannot be an acceptable explanation for not paying the existing rate for all these years. The Circular dated 10.2.2005 is not under challenge. Individual allottees cannot take the benefit of the interim order of status quo to refuse payment of even the existing rates. It also transpires from the statements of learned counsel for the Railway that there is element of doubt relating to the fact whether the original allottees continues in occupation of plot/shops or not or that it been illegally sublet to some other person. 6. In such state of facts, there is no justification on the part of the individual allottees to refrain from making payments of the rent for all these year. Individual allottees should therefore pay the existing rates till the date of issuance of the notification i.e. 21.11.2006 and thereafter make payments of arrears of 50% of the enhanced rate at Rs. 5500/- per year to the Railways within a period of 6 weeks from today . Learned counsel for the petitioner would file an affidavit giving proof of payments made by allottees said to be member of the petitioner's association. 7. Respondent-Railways in the meantime would conduct an inquiry in respect of the fact whether the original allottees are subsisting and whether plots/shops in question are being occupied by the original allottees or have been illegally sublet to someone else. It would also be open to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law for eviction of any such allottees who violated the terms of the license by illegally subletting the plots/shops to any other third person or failed to make payment as directed herein above. The respondents would also file supplementary counter affidavit before the next date about the steps taken. In view of the aforesaid order passed, I.A. No. 2636 of 2015 stands disposed of. 8. For further consideration, list this case after 6 weeks on 21.4.2016 .;