Uttam Kumar Poddor v. Union of India

Orissa HC11 Feb 2025WP(C)/4006/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition, East Coast Railway, eviction notice, vacation and demolition of shop, plot No.9 near Cuttack Railway Station, agreement dated 09.03.2020, Annexures-15, 16, 17, notice 09.03.2023, notice 17.10.2024, memorandum 09.12.2024, new land lease policy, accommodation on vacate land, protection of livelihood, opportunity of hearing, Uttam Kumar Poddor v. Union of India, Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi, disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with a direction to the Opposite Parties/Railways to find out some vacate land and accommodate the Petitioner, if available in and around Cuttack Railway Station, so that his livelihood is not jeopardised. ¶¶24

Uttam Kumar Poddor Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices dated 09.03.2023 and 17.10.2024 and the memorandum dated 09.12.2024 (Annexures-15 to 17) for vacation, demolition and eviction of the Petitioner's shop room/plot No.9 near Cuttack Railway Station, alleged to have been issued without affording an opportunity of hearing, could be sustained.

¶¶18

Court's answer

The Court recorded its view that eviction of the Petitioner's shop room is eminent (imminent), as the Railways shall require more land in future.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Opposite Parties/Railways were to try to accommodate the Petitioner if any vacate land is available in and around Cuttack Railway Station, remaining non-committal and purely subject to availability of such land; the Court directed the Railways to find out some vacate land so that the Petitioner's livelihood is not jeopardised.

¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa (S.K. Panigrahi, J.) — W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2025, disposed of by order dated 11.02.2025. A shopkeeper holding shop room/plot No.9 near Cuttack Railway Station (East Coast Railway) under an agreement dated 09.03.2020, renewed from time to time, challenged three communications — notices dated 09.03.2023 and 17.10.2024 and memorandum dated 09.12.2024 (Annexures-15 to 17) — for vacation, demolition and eviction of his shop room, contending they were issued without opportunity of hearing. The Railways stated the land was needed for expansion and amenities under its new land lease policy. Holding the eviction eminent because the Railways shall require more land in future, the Court directed the Railways to try to accommodate the petitioner on any vacate land in and around Cuttack Railway Station, purely subject to availability, and to find out some vacate land so that the petitioner's livelihood is not jeopardised, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2025

¶2

Uttam Kumar Poddor

¶3

…. Petitioner Represented By Adv. Mr. Raghunath Biswal

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Union of India & Ors. Opposite Parties Represented By DSGI Mr. P. K. Parhi Along with Mr. P. Bharadwaj, CGC

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order

ORDER 11.02.2025

No.

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

2. Heard.

¶14

3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the notice dated 09.03.2023 for vacation and demolition of shops/plots in question issued by the Sr. Section Engineer (Works), East Coast Railway, Cuttack and the notice dated 17.10.2024 issued by the Divisional Engineer (East), East Coast Railway, Khurda Road as well as another memorandum dated 09.12.2024 issued by the Sr. Divisional Engineer (Central), East Coast Railway,

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

Khurda Road under Annexures-15, 16 and 17 respectively.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a shopkeeper having a shop room/plot No.9 near Cuttack Railway Station, Cuttack under East Coast Railway since forty years on the basis of an agreement executed on 09.03.2020 between the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties. The said agreement was for a period of five years and time to time it has been renewed by the Parties. For the said shop room, the Petitioner is regularly paying the money to the Opposite Parties. The agreement is still in existence, but without affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the Opposite Parties have issued notices dated 09.03.2023, 17.10.2024 and 09.12.2024 for eviction and demolition of shop room in question vide Annexures-15, 16 and 17 respectively.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties/Railways submits that the Railways is in a need of more land for expansion of its Railways project and creation of other Railways amenities as per its new land lease policy.

¶20

6. Considering the facts and submissions made, this Court is of the view that the eviction of the Petitioner’s shop room is eminent as the Railways shall require more

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

land in future. However, the Opposite Parties/Railways shall try to accommodate the Petitioner, if there is availability of any vacate land in and around the Railway Station, Cuttack. However, the Opposite Parties/Railways is non-committal on the said issue i.e. purely on the basis of availability of vacate land. In such premises, this Court directs the Opposite Parties/Railways to find out some vacate land, if the Petitioner can be accommodated so that the livelihood of the petitioner shall not be in jeopardy.

¶24

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶25

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶26

Judge

¶27

Sumitra

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Feb-2025 19:16:32

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Uttam Kumar Poddor v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Kumar Poddor v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindra Ku.Das Vs Sanjukta Das

Somanath Nayak Vs State

Chintamani Puhan Vs State of Odisha

Hrushikesh Routray Vs Canara Bank

Kalpana Mahapatra@Jhun Vs State of Orissa

Ashok Kumar Mukherjee Vs Union of India