We Are Ready to Pay Rent for What Is Being Termed as Encroachment: Shopkeepers
Shopkeepers at Pandara Market Take a Stand; State: “We Acted for Security, Yet the Entire Market Is Being Smeared”
Ranchi: Amidst the ongoing controversy regarding alleged encroachments at the Pandara Agricultural Produce Market Committee, shopkeepers have now begun to come forward openly. In a ground report by *M Bharat 24 News LIVE*, several traders voiced their grievances and presented their side of the story, asserting that they have not engaged in any form of illegal encroachment; rather, they have merely erected limited enclosures to protect themselves from rain, filth, theft, and insecurity. Many shopkeepers also stated that if the administration were to regularize these specific areas, they would be willing to pay rent for them.
The shopkeepers argue that the reputation of traders across the entire market is being tarnished due to the actions of a few individuals. Meanwhile, the investigation itself has brought several startling facts to light. In some instances, the current occupants of the shops were found to be different from the names listed in the official records, while the list also includes names of individuals who are no longer conducting business at the market.
Sanjay Kumar Sharma, the shopkeeper at Shop No. 230, explained that the area previously housed a cattle shed (*khatal*), which was plagued by severe filth. Outsiders would cook meals there, rendering the environment unsanitary. He stated that it was for this very reason that the veranda area was enclosed and secured.
The shopkeeper at Shop No. 231 was away during the time of the interaction, while the shopkeepers at Shop Nos. 232 and 234 could not be reached. The shopkeeper at Shop No. 235 was also not present.
Vinod Kumar Agarwal, the shopkeeper at Shop No. 236, categorically rejected the allegations of encroachment, explaining that water used to seep in from the rear of the shop, rats would infest the premises, and incidents of theft were frequent. He asserted:
“The entire enclosure has been constructed strictly within the limits of our allotted space. They are welcome to conduct a measurement survey whenever they wish. If no additional land has been occupied, then labeling this as encroachment is incorrect.”
Similarly, Dinesh Bagadia, the shopkeeper at Shop No. 237, stated that the section containing the bathroom facilities was enclosed primarily for security reasons. Previously, rainwater would enter the premises, and there was a persistent risk of theft. He stated:
“Regarding the area being labeled as an encroachment, if it were to be formally settled—that is, regularized—we would even be willing to pay rent for it.”
Ayush Lohia, the shopkeeper at Shop No. 241, explained that previously there was a tin shed at the location; outsiders would illegally tap into the power supply there, and merchandise would get damaged due to water leakage. He asserted that the area was covered for security purposes and that the entire structure remains within the designated boundary. Furthermore, he alleged that despite repeated requests for repairs, their pleas went unheard.
A new fact also emerged regarding Shop No. 242. Here, a discrepancy was found between the name recorded in the official registry and the current operational status. Ishwari Sahu explained that his partner was formerly Munna Lal Agarwal, and that the construction work took place at a later stage. He added that further discussions regarding this matter would be held subsequently.
Meanwhile, concerning Shop No. 243, Kamal Agarwal stated that the shop was originally registered in the name of Vishwanath Agarwal, but it has now been formally allotted to him for the past 15 years. He categorically clarified that no new construction of any kind has been undertaken on his part, and the shop is being operated strictly on the basis of this official allotment. He invited the administration to come and inspect the premises whenever they wished.
The shopkeepers have demanded that the administration conduct an impartial survey to clarify the actual situation. They argue that it is unfair to label the entire market as an encroachment zone without conducting a thorough investigation.
