The main legal point established in the judgment is that even unauthorized occupants of premises should be evicted through legal means, and the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or termination of the lease, is judicial possession and cannot be disturbed forcibly.

JUDGMENT :

Suvra Ghosh, J.

1. Since the fact as well as law involved in the three writ petitions are similar, all of them are taken up for consideration together and proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The notice of eviction issued by the Divisional Engineer (HQ), South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur on 22nd March, 2023 is assailed in the writ petitions.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that plot of land was allotted in favour of the petitioners by the respondents by virtue of allotment letters issued in 1979 and the petitioners constructed shop rooms in the said plots at their own expenses. The respondents authority issued a notice upon the licensees on 31st December, 1997 directing them to deliver vacant possession of the plot in question in favour of the authority and restore the same to its original state on the ground that the plot was required by the railways for expansion of station, circulating area, etc. The notice was impugned by the licensees and by an order passed on 12th May, 1998 in W.P. 2997 of 1998, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the notice upon submission made by the Railway Authority before the Court that the notice be set aside with absolute liberty to the railways to seek recovery of possession of the property in question in accordance with law. Such liberty was granted to the respondents by the Court in the order. The petitioners have paid occupation charges/license fees to the authority till 2022 for the period 2022-23 prior to expiry of which the notice impugned was issued. Some of the petitioners applied for change of ownership of the plot allotted to them which was entertained by the authority which directed the petitioners to clear all outstanding dues including interest thereon and pay conversion charges equal to one year’s occupation fee. Though the notice impugned was not served upon the petitioners in accordance with law, the respondents are trying to evict them from the plot in question on the anvil of such notice which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon in South Bengal Automobiles and Ors v/s. Union of India and Ors. reported in Manu/WB/1230/2022; Panchkuian Road Refugee Vyapar Sangh and Ors. v/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors. reported in 130 (2006) DLT 553; Senior Divisional Commercial Manager and Ors. v/s. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and Ors. reported in (2016) 3 SCC 582; Dollar Industries Limited and Others v/s. Estate Officer, Kolkata Port Trust and Others reported in Manu /WB/0705/2021 in support of his contention.

4. Speaking for the Railways, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the plot occupied by the petitioners is required by the railways for the purpose of implementation of the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme which aims at modernisation/development of railway stations including passengers’ safety and other amenities. The petitioners do not possess any valid license agreement and are occupying railway property without any lawful authority. Though some of the petitioners were granted license by the railways, they were renewed only for a period of five years, such period having expired prior to May, 2020. The licenses were not renewed thereafter. The notice of eviction was issued in the greater interest of the public at large and was duly served upon the petitioners by affixing the same in the plot in question. Since there are several unauthorized occupants on railway property it was not possible to serve individual notices upon them. The petitioners being aware of the said notice cannot deny knowledge of the same. The license agreement demonstrates that the administration shall at any time be at liberty to suspend temporarily or terminate the agreement notwithstanding that the licensee may have executed any work of a permanent or temporary character and incurred expenses in the execution thereof and the licensee shall not be entitled t