Gauhati High Court
Manoj Prasad vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 31 May, 2024
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010105792024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2810/2024
MANOJ PRASAD
S/O- LATE PRABHU NANDA,
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
Page No.# 2/5
BARPETA ROAD
ASSAM
PIN-78131
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. K.
Gogoi, 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 5.00 m x 6.00 m = 30.00 Sq. Pursuant
to that letter the petitioner shifted to the said plot of land provided by the
Page No.# 3/5
Railway Authorities and is carrying on his business from there. However, by
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. K. Gogoi, 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
Page No.# 4/5
writ petitioner for shifting his place to the present place was also referred to and
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
Page No.# 5/5
furnished to him within a period of 1 (one) week from today.
7] Let the matter be listed again on 14.06.2024.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
