Ram Niwas Mishra vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors

Gauhati High Court

Ram Niwas Mishra vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 31 May, 2024

Author: Soumitra Saikia

Bench: Soumitra Saikia

                                                                    Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010105802024




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/2812/2024

         RAM NIWAS MISHRA
         S/O- LATE FULANA MISHRA,
         R/O- VILLAGE BARPETA ROAD,
         DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
         RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI-01

         2:NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
          REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
          N.F RAILWAY
          MALIGAON
          GUWAHATI-11

         3:THE ESTATE OFFICER
          N.F RAILWAY
          RANGIA
          KAMRUP
         ASSAM
          PIN-781354

         4:THE SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER
         WORKS
          BARPETA ROAD
          N.F RAILWAY
          BARPETA ROAD
         ASSAM
          PIN-78131
                                                                      Page No.# 2/5

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S NATH

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                            ORDER

31.05.2024 Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC for the respondents.

2] The petitioner is before this Court to challenge the impugned notice dated 19.08.2023 issued by the Northeastern Frontier Railway Authorities directing the petitioners to vacate the Railway land under the petitioner's unauthorized possession at Barpeta Road Railway Station, failing which he will be evicted from the said area. The petitioner claims to be running a grocery shop in Barpeta Railway Station. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier he was running a grocery shop at another plot of land, however, subsequently, by the notice dated 25.10.2015 issued by the SSE/Works/IC/BPRD NF Railway, he was shifted to another plot of land measuring 4.00 m x 5.25 m = 21.00 Sq. Pursuant to that letter the petitioner shifted to the said plot of land provided by the Railway Authorities and is carrying on his business from there. However, by Page No.# 3/5 impugned notice dated 19.08.2023 again the petitioner has been sought to vacate the provided Railway land. The petitioner is aggrieved that the procedure prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 has not been followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons had approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C) No.214/2018 and other connected matters against the earlier impugned notice dated 25.10.2015, whereby the petitioner was directed to shift his land to the new location provided by the Railway Authorities. This writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.214/2018 along with other writ petitions came to be dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2023, whereby a Co-ordinate bench of this Court held that the Court does not find any merit in their writ petitions and accordingly, dismissed those writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier writ petitions the impugned notice dated 25.10.2015 was not put to challenge and consequently, there was no finding by the Court. Therefore, he is before this Court praying for adequate orders. 3] Mr. B. Chakravarty, leaned CGC appearing for the respondents strongly objects to the contention raised by the petitioner. He submits that in the earlier Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2023 passed in WP(C) No.214/2018 along with other writ petitions the letter dated 25.10.2015 which was issued to the writ petitioner for shifting his place to the present place was also referred to and Page No.# 4/5 there was a finding by the Court that this letter was issued by an Officer who was not authorised to do so. Accordingly, the Co-ordinate bench dismissed those writ petitions. Learned CGC, therefore, submits that the matter has already been decided by this Court in Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2023 passed in WP(C) No.214/2018 along with other writ petitions and therefore, this writ petition stands barred by the doctrine of res judicata and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.

4] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in paragraph-29 of the writ petition he has named certain persons who are similarly situated and their cases have been considered by the Railway Authorities and they have been shifted to alternative places within Railway land and are still carrying out their livelihood without any hindrance.

5] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and only on the limited question as to whether the statements made in the paragraph-29 in the writ petition are correct or not, the learned CGC for the Railway is permitted to obtain instructions in the matter.

6] At this stage no Notice is issued to the respondents. However, in order to facilitate the learned CGC for the Railway to obtain instructions, extra copies be furnished to him within a period of 1 (one) week from today.

                                                               Page No.# 5/5

7]    Let the matter be listed again on 14.06.2024.




                                                      JUDGE



Comparing Assistant