Disposed¶20

Bikram Saha v. Union of India

Orissa HC18 Feb 2025WP(C)/4226/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed; shopkeeper near Cuttack Railway Station facing eviction/demolition notices dated 28.10.2024 and 09.12.2024 issued by Divisional Engineer (East) and Senior Divisional Engineer (Central), East Coast Railway, Khurda Road; existing renewed agreement; alleged lack of opportunity of hearing; Railways' new land lease policy and expansion needs acknowledged; directions to accommodate petitioner on vacant land and safeguard livelihood; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Opposite Parties/Railways to try to accommodate the petitioner on vacant land in and around Cuttack Railway Station and, if non-committal, to find alternative vacant land so that the petitioner's livelihood is not jeopardised. ¶20

Bikram Saha Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Railways could evict/demolish the petitioner's long-standing shop near Cuttack Railway Station despite an existing (periodically renewed) agreement and without affording an opportunity of hearing, and what directions should protect the petitioner's relocation and livelihood given the Railways' asserted future land requirements.

¶17

Court's answer

The Court considered demolition of the petitioner's shop room imminent, as the Railways would require more land in future for project expansion and creation of other railway amenities.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Direction to the Opposite Parties/Railways to try to accommodate the petitioner on any vacant land available in and around Cuttack Railway Station.

¶19

Key takeaways

Further direction that, if the Railways remain non-committal to provide a vacant land, they shall find out some vacant land where the petitioner can be accommodated so that his livelihood is not jeopardised.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-Bench order of Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack), disposing of W.P.(C) No.4226 of 2025 (decided 18.02.2025). The petitioner, a shopkeeper running a shop near Cuttack Railway Station for about forty years under an agreement with the Railways that was periodically renewed (as submitted by his counsel), challenged eviction/demolition notices dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure-2) and 09.12.2024 (Annexure-3) issued by East Coast Railway officials, Khurda Road, allegedly without an opportunity of hearing. Holding demolition imminent given the Railways' future land needs for expansion and amenities, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Railways to try to accommodate the petitioner on vacant land in and around Cuttack Railway Station and, failing that, to locate alternative vacant land so that his livelihood is not jeopardised.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.4226 of 2025

¶3

Bikram Saha

¶4

…. Petitioner(s) Mr. Raghunath Biswal, Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Union of India & Ors. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, DSGI Mr. Soubhagya Chandra Dev, CGC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶9

ORDER Order

¶10

18.02.2025 No.

¶11

¶12

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the notice of eviction / demolition dated 28.10.2024/Annexure-2 issued by the Divisional Engineer (East), East Coast Railway, Khurda Road and dated 09.12.2024/ Annexure-3 issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer (Central) E.Co. Railway, Khurda Road.

¶14

3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being a shopkeeper is running a shop near the Cuttack Railway Station, Cuttack under the East Coast Railway since last forty years on the basis of an agreement Signature Not Verified executed between the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties. Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication The said agreement was for a period of five years and time to Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Feb-2025 15:03:16 time it has been renewed by the Parties. He further contends

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

that though the said agreement is still in existence, the Opposite Parties without providing any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner have issued the notice of eviction/demolition to the Petitioner.

¶18

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.

¶19

6. Considering the factual scenario of the case and submissions made, this Court is of the view that demolition of the Petitioner’s shop room is imminent as the Railways shall require more land in future for the above purpose. However, the Opposite Parties/ Railways shall try to accommodate the Petitioner, if there is availability of any vacant land in and around the Cuttack Railway Station, Cuttack. However, it is further directed that if the Opposite Parties/ Railways remains non-committal to provide a vacant land to the Petitioner, the Opposite Parties/ Railways shall find out some vacant land where the Petitioner can be accommodated so that the livelihood of the Petitioner shall not be in jeopardy.

¶20

7. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Feb-2025 15:03:16 Judge Ayaskanta

¶23

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Bikram Saha v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikram Saha 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

Dibakar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Noble Aqua Pvt.Ltd. Vs Dhamaraj Feeds Corpn

Tathagata Satapathy Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd., Mumbai

Satyabrata Jena Vs State of Odisha

Satyabrata Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Mukherjee Vs Union of India