“Government Shops, Private Profits, and the Subletting Racket?” — Questions Raised Over Rented Shops, Encroachment, and Mismanagement at the Pandara Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ranchi
Ranchi: Amidst ongoing actions regarding alleged encroachment at the Pandara Agricultural Produce Market Committee, allegations have now surfaced concerning the subletting of government-allocated shops, rental rackets, and massive irregularities in the allocation process itself. A ground report by *M Bharat 24 News LIVE* revealed that the original allottees were missing from several shops, while in numerous instances, tenants admitted to being the ones actually operating the businesses. This has raised the pertinent question: who, ultimately, holds the actual control over this government property?
During the investigation, the owners of shops No. 387 and 390 could not be reached. Meanwhile, at shop No. 391, Vinay Gupta—brother of the allottee, Ranjan Kumar—explained that a temporary shed had been erected outside to provide shelter from the sun and rain. He stated that while tarpaulins were used initially, the need to accommodate laborers overnight and protect them from the rain necessitated the construction of a permanent shed. He further noted that, due to a shortage of space, many laborers are compelled to stay within the shop premises during all seasons.
At shop No. G-5, Rahul Agarwal offered to put the reporters in touch with his "Bhaiya" (elder brother); however, the actual shop owner never appeared and seemed to deliberately avoid presenting his side of the story.
At shop No. G-15, Anil Kumar stated that the space outside the shop is utilized for housing a generator; however, the individuals present at the shop flatly refused to facilitate a conversation with the owner.
Roshan Kumar of shop No. K-17 asserted that the shed was installed solely to provide shelter from the sun and rain, and that it does not constitute encroachment. According to him, there is ample clearance from the road, ensuring that vehicular movement remains completely unhindered.
Regarding shop No. K-22, Anil Gop claimed that an additional shop space is currently under his control, and he denied that any form of encroachment exists there.
Mukesh Kumar of shop No. K-23 explained that despite the construction of an external shed, rainwater still manages to seep inside the shop, necessitating the current arrangement.
The shopkeeper at shop No. K-24 could not be reached for comment. At shop No. K-26, Anuj Jaiswal revealed that the shop had been rented out to Raju Gupta. However, according to the records, Raju Gupta is also not the actual owner.
During the inspection, the precise locations of shops numbered K-28, 51, 52, 60, and 61 could not be ascertained. Tanishk Agarwal of shop K-64 stated that he was unaware of any encroachment. Shop K-72 also could not be located.
At shop K-76, Shailesh Kumar explicitly stated that he had rented the shop. Meanwhile, regarding shop K-85, information was received that Praveen Kumar Agarwal has leased the shop out to a tenant.
At shop K-87, Himanshu Chaudhary explained that he had acquired the shop through a transfer of proprietorship. According to him, this process took place around the year 2005–06. He stated that the installed shed is temporary and could be removed within 10 minutes if the administration so desired. He claimed that it was constructed solely to provide protection against sun, rain, and mud, and that it does not impede traffic flow.
During the on-ground inspection, another major issue arose regarding the shop numbering system. The shops, which are arranged in rows within the Market Committee premises, did not appear to be numbered sequentially. In some instances, a single row contained shops with disparate numbers, while in others, shops belonging to the same numerical series were found situated at widely separated locations. This discrepancy has intensified apprehensions regarding large-scale irregularities in the allocation and possession of these shops.
Local sources claim that, over time, several individuals swapped shops through mutual consent, while others simply occupied different shops for their own convenience. The most pressing question remains: under what specific regulations are these government-owned shops—originally allotted by the Market Committee at subsidized rental rates—being privately sublet to others at significantly higher market rates?
Experts point out that even under standard rental agreements, the subletting of a leased property to a third party is generally prohibited; in this specific instance, however, the matter concerns government-owned property. Consequently, if the original allottees are not operating the shops themselves but are instead leasing them out to other individuals, such actions could be classified as a direct violation of established regulations.
Nevertheless, the majority of traders within the Market Committee appeared unwilling to acknowledge the existence of any form of encroachment. They state that they have made only temporary arrangements to provide shelter from the sun, rain, and mud, and that this causes no obstruction to traffic.
