Disposed¶7

Nirmalya Majumdar v. East Coast Railway

Orissa HC11 Mar 2025WP(C)/5649/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

East Coast Railway; Cuttack Railway Station; cancellation of lease; eviction/demolition notice; opportunity of hearing; railway land lease policy; expansion of railway project; relocation/accommodation of shopkeeper; protection of livelihood; W.P.(C) No.5649 of 2020; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi; order dated 11.03.2025; disposed of with directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Opposite Parties/Railways to try to accommodate the Petitioner on vacant land in and around Cuttack Railway Station, and failing that, to find out some other vacant land where he can be accommodated so that his livelihood is not jeopardised. ¶7

Nirmalya Majumdar Vs East Coast Railway — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's challenge to the cancellation of his lease dated 24.03.2010 (Annexure-10) and the order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure-16), and to the eviction/demolition notice allegedly issued without hearing, warrants interference by the Court. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Demolition of the Petitioner's shop room is imminent, as the Railways shall require more land in future for expansion of its project and creation of other Railway amenities under its new land lease policy.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The Opposite Parties/Railways are directed to try to accommodate the Petitioner on any vacant land in and around Cuttack Railway Station; if they remain non-committal, they shall find out some vacant land where the Petitioner can be accommodated so that his livelihood is not in jeopardy.

¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by a shopkeeper running a shop near Cuttack Railway Station for about forty years under an agreement with East Coast Railway, challenging the cancellation of his lease dated 24.03.2010 (Annexure-10) and the order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure-16), and a notice of eviction/demolition said to have been issued without any opportunity of hearing. The Railways stated a need for more land for expansion of its project and creation of amenities under its new land lease policy. The Court held that demolition of the Petitioner's shop room was imminent, 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 find out some other vacant land for him so that his livelihood is not jeopardised. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. (Single Judge: Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi; order dated 11.03.2025.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5649 of 2020

¶3

Nirmalya Majumdar …. Petitioner(s)

¶4

Mr. Yeeshan Mohanty, Sr. Adv. along with associates

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. East Coast Railway & Ors. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, DSGI Mr. P. Bharadwaj, CGC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order ORDER

No. 11.03.2025

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of cancellation of lease dated 24.03.2010 passed by the Sr. Section Engineer (Work), East Coast Railaway, Cuttack vide Annexure-10 and the order dated 06.08.2019/ Annexure-

¶14

16 issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer (East) E.Co. Railway, Khurda Road.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:25:46

¶19

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 executed between the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties. He further contends that the Opposite Parties without providing

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner have issued the notice of eviction/demolition to the Petitioner.

¶22

5. At this juncture, 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

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Judge

¶28

Ayaskanta

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:25:46

¶30

Page 2 of 2

Nirmalya Majumdar v. East Coast Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmalya Majumdar v. East Coast Railway

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

Saheb@Sahab Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Bibudhendu Patnaik Vs Collector,Dhenkanal

Gourahari Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Kamala Swain Vs Sarojini Swain

Gyanaranjan Panda Vs Uco Bank, Sahid Nagar Branch, Bbsr

Bhawani Sankar Nanda Vs State of Odisha