Back
Upholds Eviction of Chandanpur Railway Station Hawkers Under Section 147 Railways Act
In a significant ruling on railway property rights, the dismissed an appeal filed by hawkers operating at Chandanpur Railway Station, upholding the eviction notice issued by railway authorities under . The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De, however, granted the occupants 90 days to vacate the premises, recognizing their long-standing vending activity.
Background of the Dispute
The appellants—represented by the —had been challenging successive eviction notices from the . In two earlier rounds of litigation, the writ court had set aside initial notices and directed the railways to consider the hawkers' representations. This culminated in a dated , wherein the railways concluded that the appellants failed to produce authentic documents establishing any right to conduct business on railway land. The order also noted that the railways had never granted permission for the registration of the cooperative society.
When the railways issued a fresh
"
"
on
, directing the hawkers to remove their structures by
, the appellants again approached the writ court, which dismissed their petition. The present appeal arose from that dismissal.
Arguments at the Bar
Senior counsel for the appellants argued that the eviction notice violated , as it gave no opportunity for hearing and was effectively a final eviction directive. They contended that the railways were bound to follow the procedure under before evicting the hawkers. Placing heavy reliance on a communication from the Divisional Engineer (ARBN)/Howrah, the appellants claimed that the railways had, in principle, acceded to their request to form a cooperative society and do business on the railway premises.
The railway authorities countered by invoking , which they argued overrides the 1971 Act in respect of railway property. They cited several precedents, including the judgment of a single judge in G. Phalaguna v. General Manager (2006) and Subrata Ghosh v. Union of India (2019), both of which held that Section 147 empowers of unauthorized occupants without resorting to the Public Premises Act. The railways further pointed out that a similar eviction order had been upheld by the in an earlier matter.
Court's Reasoning
The Division Bench closely examined Section 147(2) of the Railways Act, which provides that any person referred to in sub-section (1)—including those who enter or remain on railway property
—
"may be removed from the railway by any railway servant."
The court observed that this provision
"does not contain any
even to issue a notice before doing so."
Even assuming that a
could be read into the provision, the bench held that the process was already exhausted. The
of
, passed after giving the appellants a full opportunity, had conclusively decided their lack of right to the property.
"It does not lie in the mouth of the appellants that infinite number of
have to be given to them,"
the court remarked.
The 2006 communication came under intense scrutiny. The court noted that the letter merely asked the hawkers to submit documents regarding the formation of a registered cooperative society "for taking necessary action." It held:
"There was no assurance contained in the letter that even if such a registration was done or documents in that regard produced, a right would be conferred automatically on the appellants to possess the railway property."
Furthermore, the court relied on a
letter from the
, which admitted that a
from the railways was mandatory before registering a cooperative society on railway land. Since no such certificate was ever issued, the society's registration itself was
"
, being
and existing norms."
The bench categorically stated:
"Mere formation of a cooperative society does not automatically confer a right on such society to possess railway property in any manner whatsoever, without any
on the part of the Railway authorities, which is completely missing in the present case."
Key Observations
The court's judgment contained several pointed observations:
"Section 147(2) does not contain anyeven to issue a notice before doing so."
"There was no assurance contained in the letter that even if such a registration was done or documents in that regard produced, a right would be conferred automatically on the appellants to possess the railway property."
"Mere formation of a cooperative society does not automatically confer a right on such society to possess railway property in any manner whatsoever."
"It does not lie in the mouth of the appellants that infinite number ofhave to be given to them."
Decision and Directions
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal (MAT 1294 of 2025) and affirmed the order of the learned single judge upholding the eviction notice. However, taking note of the hawkers' long-standing presence on the railway land, the court granted them 90 days from to vacate the premises peacefully. In the event of non-compliance, the court clarified that the railway authorities would be at liberty to take appropriate steps for removal.
The judgment reinforces the primacy of over general public premises eviction statutes, and makes clear that repeated hearings cannot be claimed once a reasoned decision has been rendered on the .
