Authorities directed to hand over two alternative shops within 30 days after petitioner’s application.

The petitioner challenged the proposed removal/demolition of his property situated on Khasra No. 911/12, measuring 51 square metres, at Gariyaband, and sought protection from removal, compensation of ₹70,05,000, action against the concerned municipal officer, and quashing of the order dated 22 March 2023.

Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 stated that the petitioner had been operating a hotel near the passenger waiting shed at the Gariyaband bus stand and that the Nagar Palika Parishad had provided him two alternative shops, whose shutters were completed on 4 February 2023.

They expressed readiness to hand over possession of those two shops in lieu of the demolished premises.

The petitioner consented to allotment and delivery of possession of the two shops, while reserving liberty to seek appropriate relief if the arrangement was not implemented.

Whether, in view of the parties’ agreed arrangement, the petitioner should be granted possession of the two alternative shops in lieu of the premises allegedly demolished.

Whether the writ petition should be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief if the agreed arrangement was not complied with.

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition may be disposed of on the basis of a mutually accepted administrative arrangement when the affected party consents to the proposed relief, subject to binding directions for its implementation.

The Court further applied the principle that such disposal may preserve the petitioner’s right to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law if the undertaking or arrangement is not honoured.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The municipal respondents represented that two shops had been provided to the petitioner as an alternative to the premises allegedly demolished and that the shops were ready to be handed over.

Since the petitioner expressly stated that he had no objection to allotment and possession of the two shops, the Court treated the arrangement as an acceptable basis for resolving the immediate dispute.

To give effect to that arrangement, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities within 15 days and required the authorities to hand over possession within a further 30 days.

At the same time, the Court preserved the petitioner’s remedy by granting liberty to seek appropriate relief if possession was not delivered as directed.

The petitioner was directed to approach the concerned authorities within 15 days from receipt of the order, and the authorities were directed to hand over possession of the two alternative shops within the following 30 days.

In the event of non-compliance, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned authorities and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.