Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, this Court, by an order dated 21.01.2011, granted an order of interim stay.

8. In order to vacate the interim stay, on behalf of the respondents-Railways, a counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition. According to the respondents-Railways, as against the order of eviction passed by the fourth respondent, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 (1) of The Act, an appeal remedy is available, but without exhausting the same, the writ petition has been filed and therefore, it is not maintainable. When there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available before the appellate authority, as contemplated under Section 9 of the said Act, the writ petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India is not maintainable. It was further contended by the respondents-Railways that the land in which the school is presently being run belongs to the Railways. Further, the appellant, without obtaining any permission had put up construction and thereby breached the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into with the respondents/railways. Above all, it was contended by the respondents-Railways 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 a 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 traveling 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 appellant is therefore for public utility development, which will outweigh the requirement of the appellant. The appellant had accepted the title of the Railways to the subject land before the Estate Officer and stated that they would vacate the premises and they had only sought for time. However, the appellant has filed the writ petition and assailed the order of eviction passed by the fourth respondent. According to the respondents-Railways the appellant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement by putting up unauthorised construction in the Railway land. The appellant has also violated the terms of the agreement by constructing the buildings with an area of about 30,000 square feet unauthorisedly in the Railway land. According to the respondents-Railways, as per paragraph 2(a) of the agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondents-railways, before proceeding to construct any building or other erection on the leased out land, prior approval of the Railways is necessary, however, no such prior approval has been obtained by the appellant-School before putting up the offending construction. Further, as per the clauses contained in the lease agreement, if there is any dispute between the parties to the agreement, such dispute will be referred to the General Manager of the respondents-Railways and a decision will be taken by the General Manager of the Railways which will be final and binding on the appellant. In the present case, the appellant has not paid the licence fee properly due to the Railways and put up construction in the leased out land consisting of three blocks and two annexe buildings without the permission of the Railways, which amounts to breach of the terms of the agreement. Further, as on the date of filing the writ petition the occupation of appellant can be construed as an unlawful occupation. As per Clause 6 of the agreement, the respondents-Railways are entitled to determine and put an end to the agreement by giving six months' notice and in case of breach of any condition, even without any such notice, the respondents-Railways are empowered to proceed further and to cancel the lease agreement. In this case, since the appellant has breached the terms and conditions of the agreement, the respondents had terminated the agreement after following the due process of law. It was further contended in the counter affidavit that the wards of the Railway employees studying in the appellant School is of minimal strength. The annual licence fee fixed at the time of agreement was Re.1/- and it was periodically revised to Rs.100/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.1,000/- during the years 1962, 1984 and 1992 respectively. The licence fee was revised at the rate of 6% of the market value of the land as per the Railway Board's letter dated 10.04.2003 and the same was advised to the appellant School but the appellant school failed to pay the revised licence fee but on the contrary continued to deposit Rs.1,000/- per year, which was not accepted by the Railways. The amount of arrears upto March 2012 was Rs.77,38,195/-. The appellant having breached the terms of the licence, is liable to be evicted from the Railway premises as per the said Act of 1971.

9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was further stated that there were several correspondences between the parties and that the appellant has been asked to shift the School without causing any hindrance to the work of the Railways, but unfortunately, there was no response. There is an urgency to secure the possession of the land under the occupation of the appellant, since Tambaram Yard has been identified for the development of a new coaching terminal with an outlay of approximately Rs.50 crores. After issuance of Form-A notice, as per Clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said 1971 Act, personal hearing was given to the appellant school on 18.10.2010 and the appellant also attended the enquiry with two Advocates and accepted that the land belongs to the Railways. Inspite of the demand made by the respondents-Railways, the appellant refused to budge and therefore, the respondents-Railways were forced to issue another notice in Form-B. The action taken by the respondents-railways to evict the appellant is in accordance with the provisions contained under The Act and therefore, the respondents-Railways prayed for vacating the interim stay.

17. By placing reliance on the aforesaid affidavit filed by the appellant School, the learned Senior counsel prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and to grant one year time till 30.06.2019 so as to enable the appellant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the school premises to the respondents-Railways.

18. Countering the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents-Railways would contend that the time sought for by the appellant for vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the premises is too longer. According to the learned Standing counsel for the respondents, Phase-I of Tambaram Coaching Terminal with 2 pit lines and 2 stabling lines was commissioned on 07.08.2017 and absolutely there is a necessity to expand the terminal for full-fledged operations. It is an essential project because the maintenance sheds in Gopalapuram Yard (Egmore) and Basin Bridge (Chennai Central) are saturated. On 5th January 2012, the Southern Railway started preliminary works for shifting south bound trains to Tambram junction. For starting new trains to southern districts, which has a huge demand, new maintenance facilities are needed at Tambaram. After taking up work on the second entrance on the Velacherry main road, the Tambaram Railway Station has achieved many milestones in terms of infrastructure, Additional Platforms, water facilities, escalators connecting the eastern and western sides of the Station, CCTV cameras on platforms and at entry and exit points, clean and litter-free platforms which are some of the additions that were made in the past two years. Everyday, on an average, around 1,50,000 commuters use the station. About 280 suburban electric trains operate from Tambaram, including those between Chennai Beach and Chengalpattu and Kancheepuram. Further, more than 25 Express Trains, including those bound for Howrah and other places in the North pass through the Tambaram. It is also third busiest station in the city, after Chennai Central and Chennai Egmore. A total of 52 trains pass through the station on an average. At present, there are three originating/terminating trains at Tambaram. The third line between Tambaram and Chengalpattu project at a cost of Rs.200 crores, Coaching terminal at a cost of Rs.24 crores (Phase II yet to be implemented due to the presence of the school), the Rs.40 Crore integrated Security Surveillance System (ISSS) project is implemented jointly by the Southern Railway and HCL Infosystems and Train Set Yard to come at a cost of Rs.248 crore. The Tambaram Railway Station has the proximity to the Central Warehousing Corporation's godown located at Chitlapakkam which makes it technically important. Therefore, any delay in completing the project, according to the learned counsel for the respondents-Railways will cause prejudice to the respondents-Railways.

19. The learned counsel for the respondents-railways would further submit that the tenders for the Phase II works at Tambaram Coaching terminal could not be called due to the presence of appellant School and the pending court case. If the phase II projects are further delayed, this would delay the full-fledged operations and the safety of the traveling public is at stake and would not get the desired benefits. Further, the coaching terminal work, as per the approved Master plan, could not be taken up in a single phase due to the presence of the appellant School located right over the alignment of the proposed pit lines and stabling lines, hence, Phase I work with the above facilities only could be completed. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondents-Railways, if any extension of time is given for the appellant school to vacate and handover the vacant possession, it would result in diversion of funds already sanctioned to the project to other similar projects or would result in stoppage of introduction of new trains from Tambaram.