The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the licensor to fix the license fee and the legal obligation of the licensee to pay the fee, as well as the competence of the licensor to terminate the license and initiate eviction proceedings if the fee is not paid.

V.K. Jain, J.

Late Shri Harbhajan Singh father of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.13687/2009, late Shri M.L. Vig, father of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.14025/2010, late Shri Ramesh Kumar, father of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.220/2010, late Shri Sita Ram, maternal uncle of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.226/2010 and Shri Rajinder Kumar, petitioner in W.P(C) No. 272/2010 were allotted different pieces of land measuring 11.97 square meters each, whereas late Shri A.L. Sharma, father of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 227/2010 and 271/2010, late Smt.Meera Bai, mother of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 13688/2009, late Shri Harish Chander, father of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 13989/2009 and Ajay Kumar, petitioner in W.P(C) No. 14001/2009 were allotted plots measuring 67 square meters each by the respondent – Indian Railways, on license basis, for construction of shops on the aforesaid plots. The said allotment was made under a policy of Indian Railways. As noted by this Court in W.P(C) No.17216/2006 and connected writ petitions, as per the agreed terms, the license fees at 20% of the land rates.

2. Vide demand notice dated 12.4.2009, the allottees were asked to pay the license fees calculated @ 20% of the land rates for the period from 1.4.1995 to 21.3.2004, and 10% of the land rate from the period 1.4.2004 to 31.03.2009. The land rates applied were as under:

S.No.	Period	% L/F	Land Rate 10% increased upto 31.03.2004 further 7%
1.	1.4.95 – 31.3.96	20%	6225/-
2,	1,4,96 – 31.3.97	20%	6847/-
3.	1.4.97 – 31.3.98	20%	7532/-
4.	1.4.96 – 31.3.99	20%	8285/-
5.	1.4.99.31.3.00	20%	9114/-
6.	1.4.00 – 31.3.01	20%	10025/-
7.	1.4.01 – 31.3.02	20%	11028/-
8.	1.4.02 – 31.3.03	20%	12131/-
9.	1.4.03 – 31.3.04	20%	13344/-
10.	1.4.04 – 31.3.05	10%	14278/-
11.	1.4.05 – 31.3.06	10%	15277/-
12.	1.4.06 – 31.3.07	10%	16347/-
13.	1.4.07 – 31.3.08	10%	17491/-
14.	1.4.08 – 31.3.09	10%	18715/-

The land rates were, thus, increased @ 10% per annum upto 31.3.2004 and @ 7% per annum with effect from 1.4.2004. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid demand, the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the demand notice.

3. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the allottees have failed to pay the arrears of licence fees in respect of the land which was allotted to them and they are liable to pay the same along with interest. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the present occupants are enjoying the land without having paid the licence fees for the last 16 years.

4. At one stage, the respondents had initiated proceedings under Public Premises Act on the allegations that the arrears of licence fees had not been paid and the occupation was an unauthorized occupation on railway land. During the course of hearing before the Estate Officer Mr. L.R. Vohra, a letter dated 17.9.1992 written by GM (Engineering) to the Executive Director (Land Management), Railway Board was produced. It was stated in the aforesaid letter that the licence fees be recovered @ Rs.1105 per annum till further orders of the shops in question situated at Tuglaqabad. The respondents before the Estate Officer made a statement that they were ready to pay licence fees @ Rs.1105/- per annum with 10% increase every year without compounding since 1.1.1989. In view of the said statement, the Estate Officer directed the respondents before him to pay licence fees at the aforesaid rate of Rs.1105 per annum with 10% compounding till the decision of the Competent Authority in this respect.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lala Ram(D) by L.R. & Ors.versus Union of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos.243-247 of 2003] wherein the Apex Court upheld the right of the Railways t