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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Opposite Parties/Railways to attempt 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; the eviction/demolition notices themselves were not quashed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices of eviction/demolition issued by the Railways without providing the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing, notwithstanding the subsisting agreement, could be challenged in this writ petition. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court held that demolition of the Petitioner's shop room is imminent, as the Railways will require more land in future for expansion of its project and creation of other amenities.

Ratio / Principle

The Opposite Parties/Railways were directed to try to accommodate the Petitioner if any vacant land is available in and around Cuttack Railway Station.

Key takeaways

If the Opposite Parties/Railways remain non-committal to provide vacant land, they were directed to find out some other vacant land where the Petitioner can be accommodated, so that his livelihood is not placed in jeopardy.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 jurisdiction of the High Court of Orissa (writ jurisdiction invoked via W.P.(C)) by a shopkeeper running a shop near Cuttack Railway Station for forty years under five-year renewable agreements with the Railways, challenging eviction/demolition notices dated 23.10.2024 and 09.12.2024 said to have been issued without an opportunity of hearing. The Railways stated the land was needed for expansion and amenities under its new land lease policy. The Court observed that demolition of the shop was imminent given the Railways' future land requirements, but directed the Railways to try to accommodate the Petitioner on any vacant land in and around Cuttack Railway Station and, if non-committal, to locate alternative vacant land so that the Petitioner's livelihood would not be in jeopardy. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.4281 of 2025

Ashok Kumar Mukherjee …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Raghunath Biswal, Adv.

-versus-

Union of India & Ors.

…. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, DSGI Mr. Soubhagya Chandra Dev, CGC

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order

ORDER

18.02.2025 No.

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the notice of eviction / demolition dated 23.10.2024/Annexure-9 issued by the Divisional Engineer (East), East Coast Railway, Khurda Road and dated 09.12.2024/ Annexure-10 issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer (Central) E.Co. Railway, Khurda Road.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

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

Page 1 of 2

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.

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.

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.

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

Signature Not Verified

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

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

Page 2 of 2