“Encroachment Under the Guise of Occupation at Pandara Market Committee?” — Traders Say: ‘Theft, Murder, and Insecurity Forced Us to Install Channel Gates’
Ranchi: The ongoing investigation into alleged encroachments at the Pandara Agricultural Produce Market Committee is now escalating into a major controversy. On one hand, the administration is engaged in investigating illegal occupations and regulatory violations; on the other, the traders are describing themselves as helpless and vulnerable. In an investigation conducted by *M Bharat 24 News LIVE*, several traders claimed that the Market Committee has failed to provide adequate security for years, compelling them—out of sheer necessity—to install channel gates, grills, and walls outside their shops.
The traders asserted that the Market Committee premises were plagued by persistent incidents of theft, snatching, and the menace of stray animals. Furthermore, the situation had deteriorated to the point where a laborer was even stabbed to death within the complex. Despite these grave incidents, security arrangements were not strengthened. Now, preparations are underway to take punitive action against these very security measures, labeling them as encroachments.
Kishore Kumar, the shopkeeper at Shop No. 320, stated that the veranda was originally completely open. Animals would frequently wander into the shops and create unhygienic conditions. He remarked that while the government is free to reclaim the land if it so desires, installing channel gates for the sake of security was an unavoidable necessity.
Rohit Kumar—a trader associated with Shop No. 322 and a member nominated by the Governor to the Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board—made a significant claim, noting that when the shops were first allotted in 1995, the verandas were open. He recalled that thefts and snatching incidents were commonplace during the night. He further reiterated that a laborer had even been stabbed to death within the Market Committee premises. Rohit Kumar posed a pertinent question: if the Market Committee failed to provide security, how were the traders expected to safeguard their merchandise and their own lives?
Rahul Kumar, a trader operating shops No. 323 and 324, explained that walls and channel gates had to be installed specifically to curb incidents of theft. However, he acknowledged that, strictly speaking, such installations could be deemed irregular or in violation of the established regulations.
Mahabir Prasad of Shop No. 327 stated that grills were installed solely to find relief from the persistent threat of theft and the nuisance caused by stray animals. He stated that if the administration has any objections, they are willing to remove the structure; however, the Market Committee must first provide a guarantee of security.
Mohammad Shakeel, owner of Shop No. 328, stated that he had not made any alterations to the original structure. Since the veranda was open, animals would frequently damage the merchandise. He added that even after installing a channel gate, instances of theft did not cease.
Rakesh Sahu, owner of Shop No. 332, alleged that there is a deliberate attempt to falsely label the traders as encroachers. He questioned who would be responsible for safeguarding their goods if the channel gates were removed. He further noted that the traders are willing to pay additional rent and revenue, but the Market Committee's administrative system has fallen into a state of complete disarray.
Meanwhile, Ramlakhan Sahu, owner of Shop No. 333, explained that the veranda attached to his shop was originally allotted for the purpose of drying raw materials. For security purposes, walls rising four feet high were constructed on both sides of the veranda, and channel gates were installed. Now, these very structures are being labeled as encroachments.
However, the correspondent was unable to meet with the shopkeepers of Shop Nos. 246, 325, 330, 331, and 334, while the respective traders for Shop Nos. 321 and 326 were not present at their premises.
The question now squarely rests upon the Market Committee and the administration: If adequate security arrangements were not provided for years—during which incidents such as theft and even murder continued to occur—is it truly justifiable to take punitive action against the traders by simply labeling their self-initiated security measures as "encroachments"? Or will accountability also be established regarding the Market Committee's own negligence?
