Disposed¶24

Madhusudan Das v. Union of India

Orissa HC24 Feb 2025WP(C)/5160/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

eviction demolition notice East Coast Railway Khurda Road Cuttack Railway Station shopkeeper forty years five-year agreement renewal no opportunity of hearing railway land expansion new land lease policy accommodate petitioner vacant land livelihood protection writ petition disposed High Court of Orissa Dr. S.K. Panigrahi 2025

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions that the Opposite Parties/Railways shall try to accommodate the Petitioner on any vacant land in and around Cuttack Railway Station and, if non-committal, find some vacant land where he can be accommodated so that his livelihood is not jeopardised. ¶24

Madhusudan Das Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's shop near Cuttack Railway Station, held under a subsisting agreement with the Railways, could be subjected to eviction/demolition for Railway land requirements, and what accommodation the Railways must provide so that the Petitioner's livelihood is protected.

¶21

Court's answer

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.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

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.

¶23

Key takeaways

If the Opposite Parties/Railways remain non-committal to provide a vacant land to the Petitioner, they shall find out some vacant land where the Petitioner can be accommodated so that the livelihood of the Petitioner shall not be in jeopardy.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — W.P.(C) No.5160 of 2025 (order dated 24.02.2025, Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.). Madhusudan Das, a shopkeeper operating near Cuttack Railway Station under East Coast Railway for about forty years pursuant to a five-year agreement periodically renewed, challenged eviction/demolition notices dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure-3) and 09.12.2024 (Annexure-4) issued by the Divisional Engineer (East) and the Senior Divisional Engineer (Central), E.Co. Railway, Khurda Road respectively, allegedly without affording him an opportunity of hearing; the Railways pleaded need for more land for expansion and amenities under its new land lease policy. Holding that demolition of the shop was imminent as the Railways would require more land in future, the Court nevertheless directed the Railways to try to accommodate the petitioner on any available vacant land in and around Cuttack Railway Station and, failing that, to locate some vacant land where he could be accommodated so that his livelihood would not be placed in jeopardy; the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. No statute or precedent was cited.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5160 of 2025

¶3

Madhusudan Das

¶4

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

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Union of India & Ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Santosh Sethi, CGC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER Order

No.

24.02.2025

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the notice of eviction / demolition dated 28.10.2024/Annexure-3 issued by the Divisional Engineer (East), East Coast Railway, Khurda Road and dated 09.12.2024/ Annexure-4 issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer (Central) E.Co. Railway, Khurda Road.

¶16

3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

¶18

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

¶19

executed between the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties. Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: AYASKANTA JENA The said agreement was for a period of five years and time to Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Feb-2025 16:54:39 ti me it has been renewed by the Parties. He further contends that though the said agreement is still in existence, the

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

Opposite Parties without providing any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner have issued the notice of eviction/demolition to the Petitioner.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa Judge Date: 24-Feb-2025 16:54:39 Ayaskanta

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Madhusudan Das v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudan Das 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

Subash Ch.Choudhury Vs Raj Ku.Prasad

Alok Sahoo Vs State

Bhima Madhi Vs State of Odisha

Harish Chandra Hansdah Vs State of Odisha

Bijaya Kumar Biswal Vs Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Bbsr

Arabinda Kumar Mishra Vs Union of India