RAM CHANDRA MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a stay on the demolition of the shop rooms undertaken by the Railway Authorities.

(2.) 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 Sec. 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 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.

(3.) 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 Sec. 147 of the Act of 1989 as well as Sec. 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 Honourable 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 Jan. 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.