Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The respondents 1 to 5 have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy, and hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Even on the merits of the matter, it is stated that the land belongs to the Railways, in which the School is being constructed without permission and that the land is urgently required in connection with the proposed project for coaching terminal at Tambaram to accommodate stabling lines and pit lines proposed in Phase-I at the cost of Rs.11.62 crores and that the contract has already been awarded by the construction organisation of the Railways. The work is held up for want of land. Due to enormous increase in the passenger and Rail traffic, it is absolutely imperative in the interest of the travelling public to commence and complete the said terminal work. Taking note of the fact that two existing terminals at Chennai Egmore and Chennai Central are saturated, it is imperative to develop the third terminal at Tambaram to cater to the additional demand. The requirement of the land under occupation of the petitioner is therefore for public utility development, which will outweigh the requirement of the petitioner. The petitioner had accepted the title of the Railways to the subject land before the Estate Officer and stated that they would vacate the premises, but had only sought for time. It is stated by the respondents-Railways that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the agreement by effecting unauthorised construction in the Railway land. The petitioner has also violated the terms of the agreement by constructing the buildings with an area of about 30,000 Sq.Ft. unauthorisedly in the Railway land. It is clearly mentioned in paragraph 2(a) of the agreement that before proceeding to construct any building or other erection on the Railway land, prior approval of the Railways is necessary, which has not been followed by the petitioner.

10. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit to the counter by reiterating their stand and stated that it is false case of the respondents/Railways that only for the purpose of providing the proposed coaching terminal at Tambaram, the land occupied by the petitioner-School is required. It is stated that the request of the residents of Tambaram as well as other parts of the City, is to establish the coaching terminal at Royapuram. In fact, the request for establishment of terminal at Royapuram, has also been published in various newspapers. The respondents-Railways have not taken any steps for the same, but however, stated that they wanted to establish the coaching terminal at Tambaram. It is incorrect to state that without the permission of the Railway authorities, the petitioner has constructed only 17,464 Sq.Ft. and not 30,000 Sq.Ft. as stated in the counter affidavit. The children of the Railway employees are also studying in the School. The identity of the children is kept confidential and the same has not been disclosed to anyone. Only at the request of the Railway employees, whose wards are studying in the School, the details were not furnished to the respondents/Railways.

12. It is also stated by the petitioner in the reply affidavit that knowing that the petitioner-School is a non-fee levying School, which does not collect any fee from its students and is rendering free education to the poor children and especially to the wards of the Railway employees, the respondents-Railways cannot expect such exorbitant licence fee of Rs.77,38,195/-. Further, since the petitioner failed to pay the licence fee as demanded by the respondents/Railways, the respondents/Railways chose to take the shield of the alleged development of new coaching terminal and are bent upon evicting the petitioner. The place where the School is situated, is not required by the Railways for expansion. The petitioner-School further states that they never appeared before the respondents-Railways with two Advocates and did not agree to vacate the premises. The petitioner only gave a letter seeking four weeks' time to present their case. The entire proceedings initiated by the respondent-Estate Officer are in gross violation of the said Act and the relevant Rules and that sufficient opportunity has not been given to the petitioner. The School is being run regularly and evening classes are being conducted regularly to coach the poor students and the School is in existence for more than 77 years and cannot be thrown out merely for non-payment of licence fee demanded by the Railways and prayed for the relief in the Writ Petition stated supra.

20. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the land in question belongs to the Railways and the petitioner-School is a licensee. Admittedly, permanent structure has been put up without the permission of the Railways. The non-payment of enhanced licence fee may be a ground for eviction, but that cannot be the only ground to vacate the premises. The place in question is required by the Railways for establishing coaching terminal (third terminal). The two grounds, namely non-payment of licence fee and unauthorised occupation, alleged by the Railways for requiring the place, are independent of each other. It cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination that on account of non-payment of licence fee, the respondents-Railways are trying to evict the petitioner on the ground of expansion of Railways at Tambaram. Whether the coaching terminal has got to be set up at Royapuram or any other place, is a policy decision of the Railways, which cannot be questioned by the petitioner, unless the same is arbitrary. In this case, there is no arbitrariness on the part of the Railways. The permanent structure has been put up in the Railway land without the permission of the Railways. In fact, in one of the aforesaid communications, it has been stated by the Headmistress that they are not aware that they should obtain prior permission before construction. Thereafter, they started writing communication seeking permission to construct the building. Six months' time has to be given by either of the parties to terminate the agreement. In this case, more than six months' time had been given. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the notice dated 30.09.2010 is well short of seven days as required, and now more than seven years have gone by, to put it precisely, more than a decade has gone by.