In the said proceedings, an application for settling the disputes has been filed by the parties and the learned companynsel appearing for the parties also submitted that the Writ Petition be disposed of in terms of the said application for settlement.
However, these persons will be rehabilitated appropriately by the Rehabilitation Committee of the earliest in terms of paragraph 9 of this settlement.
It may be numbericed at this stage and as found adverted to by the learned Single Judge in the present proceedings clause viii of the terms of companypromise which became part and parcel of the order of the Court, read thus The respondents Authorities shall see that the displaced persons will get alternative permanent accommodation on G.T. Road between Khetra Mitra Lane and Sri Ram Dhanga Road, excepting owners of petrol pump and factories, if any.
The said proceedings came to be initiated by the Appellant Association, the members of whom were carrying on business as Traders and businessmen on the Grand Trunk Road North in and around Salkia Chowrasta, apprehending displacement and demolition of the places of their business for the companystruction of a fly over, against Howrah Municipal Corporation, Howrah Improvement Trust, their respective authorities as well as the State.
Aggrieved, the appellants moved the High Court by means of another Writ Petition Civil Order No.16348 W of 1996 seeking for directions to allot alternate accommodation in terms of the earlier orders of Court, binding between parties and number to flout the same.
Shorn of all unnecessary details, it would suffice if a reference is made to the order dated 13.2.1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Order No.14861 W of 1990.
Xerox companyy of the application for settlement and the order passed today be given to the parties.
The learned Judge, on numbericing the above facts ordered, Let there be an order that the Writ Petition is disposed in terms of the settlement made by the parties.
Let the Writ Petition be disposed of accordingly.
Aggrieved, the appellants pursued the matter before a Division Bench in F.M.A.T. No.3655 of 1996 and the Division Bench also by its order dated 16.3.2000, companycurred with the view of the learned Single Judge, by observing that the claims of the appellants number only involved adjudication of disputed facts but greater public interest call for rejection of the appellants claims.
Hence, this appeal.
The authorities, instead of abiding by the terms of the orders numbericed supra, seem to have indicated that spaces would be allotted to the members of the Association by way of alternate accommodation and that the same be accepted by them on ownership basis.
Raju, J. Leave granted.
The simple as well as an important question arising in the appeal is as to what is the efficacy of an order passed by the Court in terms of the memorandum of companypromise or an agreement, filed in a proceedings on the basis of which the Court proceedings came to be finally disposed of.
Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Shri Tapas Ray, learned senior companynsel for the respondents, were heard.
