Dismissed¶¶31

Shamim Hussain v. South East Central Railway

Chhattisgarh HC12 Mar 2026WA/218/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; writ appeal (WA No. 218 of 2026); appellant Shamim Hussain; respondents South East Central Railway officers (GM, DRM office, settlement and works engineers); possession of railway/departmental premises without existing lease; no vested right to remain in possession; eviction/encroachment context; appeal dismissed in terms of coordinate-bench judgment dated 11.02.2026 in Aslam Hussain v. South East Central Railway, WA No.131/2026; Single Judge order in Writ Petition (C) No. 6219 of 2024 left undisturbed; no costs; counsel: Mr.Amrito Das (appellant), Mr.Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General (respondents).

What did the court decide?

The present writ appeal is dismissed in terms of this Court's judgment dated 11.02.2026 in WA No.131/2026, with no order as to costs. ¶¶31

Shamim Hussain Vs South East Central Railway — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:11988-DB

NAFR

Digitally signed byBABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2026.03.16 10:26:41 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 218 of 2026

¶7

Shamim Hussain S/o Shri Nazim Hussain And Late Smt. Jamila Begum Aged About 50 Years Laknavi Mannat Hotel, Budhwari Bazar, Railway Station Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - South East Central Railway Through The General Manager, Secr Zonal Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Estate Officer Additional Divisional Railway Manager- I, Sec Railway, Drm Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Divisional Railway Manager (Drm) Drm Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Senior Divisional Engineer (Settlement) South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Assistant Divisional Engineer (Settlement- Ii) South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Senior Section Engineer (Works) Market, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶18

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶21

13.03.2026

¶22

Heard Mr.Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondents/State.

¶23

The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 6219 of 2024 by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 11.02.2026 in WA No.131/2026 (Aslam Hussain v. South East Central Railway and others), wherein this Court held as under:-

¶25

“10 After adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material annexed with the writ petitions and writ appeals, this court is also of the opinion that the order passed by learned Single Judge is in accordance with law as the appellants have no vested right to remain in possession of the subject premises when they had no any existing lease in their favour from the concerned department.

¶26

11 In writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infirmities are being shown in the impugned order. From perusal of entire material placed on record, we do not

¶27

¶28

find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge which warrants interference of this court.

¶29

12 The judgment cited by the counsel for the appellants is of no help to them as the facts and consideration in that case is distinguishable to the facts and consideration of the present case. In that case, the Supreme Court stayed the high court order for the mass eviction of residents who claimed long-term, 50-70 year possession, noting that a "practical solution" and rehabilitation must be considered, although this does not legalize the encroachment itself.

¶30

13 Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed.”

¶31

In view of above, the present writ appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court vide judgment dated 11.02.2026 passed in WA No.131/2026 . No cost(s).

¶32

Sd/- Sd/-

¶33

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶34

Bablu

Shamim Hussain v. South East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamim Hussain v. South East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP Vs Wapcos Limited

M/S Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP Vs Wapcos Limited

Avinash Kumar Khandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toman Das Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishal Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Abhiyantri Enterprises Private Ltd. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh