Disposed¶26

Ashok Kumar Mukherjee v. Union of India

Orissa HC11 Feb 2025WP(C)/4246/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cuttack Railway Station shop eviction; East Coast Railway, Khurda Road notices dated 17.10.2024 and 09.12.2024 (Annexures-8 and 9); demolition of shop room occupied for forty years under renewable five-year agreement; no opportunity of hearing before eviction notice; Railways land expansion and new land lease policy; direction to accommodate petitioner on vacate railway land if available; protection of livelihood; writ petition disposed of; single judge Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi; order dated 11.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Opposite Parties/Railways to try to accommodate the petitioner on vacate land in and around Cuttack Railway Station, if available, so that his livelihood is not jeopardised. ¶26

Ashok Kumar Mukherjee Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner can be evicted and his shop room demolished pursuant to the notices dated 17.10.2024 and 09.12.2024 issued without affording him an opportunity of hearing, in view of the Railways' requirement of land for expansion and amenities under its new land lease policy.

¶20

Court's answer

The Court took the view that the eviction of the petitioner's shop room is eminent (as printed) because the Railways shall require more land in future.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the Opposite Parties/Railways to try to accommodate the petitioner on any vacate land in and around Cuttack Railway Station, remaining non-committal and acting purely on availability of vacate land, so that the petitioner's livelihood is not jeopardised.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.4246 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi, order dated 11.02.2025) filed by Ashok Kumar Mukherjee, a shopkeeper occupying Plot No.02 near Cuttack Railway Station under East Coast Railway for about forty years under a five-year renewable agreement, challenging (i) a notice dated 17.10.2024 issued by the Divisional Engineer (East) and (ii) a memorandum dated 09.12.2024 issued by the Sr. Divisional Engineer (Central), East Coast Railway, Khurda Road (Annexures-8 and 9), calling for eviction and demolition of the shop without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Railways stated the land was needed for expansion of its project and creation of amenities under its new land lease policy. Holding the eviction eminent in view of the Railways' future land requirement, the Court nevertheless directed the Railways to try to accommodate the petitioner on any vacate land in and around Cuttack Railway Station, purely subject to availability, so that his livelihood is not jeopardised, and disposed of the writ petition. No statute or precedent was cited.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4246 of 2025

¶2

Ashok Kumar Mukherjee

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. Mr. Raghunath Biswal

¶5

-versus-

¶6

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

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

Order

11.02.2025

No.

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

2. Heard.

¶16

3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging 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, Khurda Road under Annexures-8 and 9 respectively.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a shopkeeper having a shop room/Plot No.02

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

near Cuttack Railway Station, Cuttack under East Coast Railway since forty years on the basis of an agreement 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 17.10.2024 and 09.12.2024 for eviction and demolition of shop room in question vide Annexures-8 and 9 respectively.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 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

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

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.

¶26

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶27

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶28

Sumitra

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 21-Feb-2025 17:52:48

¶31

Page 3 of 3