Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kc Ram Chandra Malik & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 October, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
10
26.10.2017
W.P. No. 25882(W) of 2017
KC Ram Chandra Malik & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Sadhan Roychowdhury
Mr. B. K. Singh
Mr. Saikat Ghosal
Mr. Dipak Chakraborty.
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh.
... for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
The petitioner seeks a stay on the demolition of the shop rooms undertaken by the Railway Authorities.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioners are occupiers of a property belonging to the railways. Advance notice of eviction was not given to the petitioners. The petitioners are in occupation for at least 50 years without any objection. There is a market located at such place. The petitioners earn their livelihood from such market place. He submits that, the Railway authorities are obliged to act in accordance with law. The Railway authorities are required to initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction. In the instant case, the Railway authorities have not done so. He draws the attention of the Court to the various provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 and particularly Section 4D thereof. He submits that, the Railway authorities are obliged to frame a scheme for the purpose of rehabilitation of the persons affected by the 2 act of eviction. In the present case, such scheme, at least to the knowledge of the petitioners, has not been formulated. Consequently, he submits that, the Railway authorities should stay their hands till such scheme is framed and appropriate measures are taken for eviction if the railways are entitled to do so, in accordance with law.
Learned advocate for the Railway authorities submits that, the petitioners are admittedly unauthorised occupants of railway property. He draws the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition to the effect that, the petitioners were informed verbally as to the eviction drive. He relies upon Section 147 of the Act of 1989 as well as Section 2(31) thereof, in support of the contention that, an unauthorised occupant can be evicted by the Railway authorities by exercising powers under such provisions. In the present case, the Railway authorities have done so. He relies upon four decisions of this Hon'ble Court in support of his contentions. Two on such decisions are reported at 2006(2) CLJ 193 (G. Phalaguna Vs. General Manager, Indian Railways) and 2013(5) CHN 93 (Dhurjati Prosad Das Vs. Union of India). Two of the unreported decisions are dated July 10, 2012 passed in W.P. 12581(W) of 2012 (Imran Ahmed Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and January 4, 2017 passed in APOT No. 109 of 2016 (Eastern Railway Vs. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd.). He submits that, no interference is called for in the present writ petition.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and 3 the materials made available on record.
The petitioners admit that they are in occupation of railway property. The petitioners also admit that they do not posses any requisite permission from the Railway authorities to do so. However, in course of submission, learned advocate for the petitioners has offered to pay the occupation charges payable by the petitioners in accordance with law.
Power to evict a trespasser is recognised under Section 147 of the Act of 1989. Such powers came up for consideration before this Hon'ble Court in G. Phalaguna (supra). There, the writ petitioners were seeking a direction upon the Railway Authorities not to evict them without invoking the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Such plea was negated. The Railway Authorities were found to be entitled to evict the trespassers without the Act of 1971 by exercising powers under Section 147 of the Act of 1989. Such position in law was followed in Imran Ahmed (supra). These two decisions were taken into consideration in Dhurjati Prosad Das (supra) and the Court found the Railway Authorities to be entitled to evict trespassers by exercising powers under Section 147 of 4 the Act of 1989.
In a different factual context, the appeal Court in Eastern Railways (supra) found that, the Railway Authorities are entitled to evict trespassers forcibly also.
In the present case, the Railway Authorities contend that, the land in question occupied by the petitioners is required for the purpose of expansion of the Grand Chord Line passing through such area. Such a project is in public interest.
The petitioner does not have any subsisting legal right to occupy the property of the Railway Authorities. Powers of the railways to evict a trespasser exercising the provisions of Section 147 of the Act of 1989 are well recognised. The Railway Authorities have invoked such provisions in the process of evicting the petitioners.
In such factual matrix, no interference is called for by the Writ Court.
W.P. No. 25882(W) of 2017 is dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, 5 be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)