Point of Law- Substantial contention is that the action is violative of the principles of natural justice, in view of the fact that no individual notices have been given but in the considered opinion of this Court, the principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to that extent that it may become an unruly horse as held by one of the decisions delivered by the Apex Court.

ORDER :

1. By way of this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

“8{A} Your Lordships may be pleased to issued a writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ order of direction quashing and setting aside the public notice dated 06.02.2020 affixed by the respondent no. 1 as being illegal and against the provisions of the Act;

({B} Your Lordships may be pleased to issued a writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ order of directing the respondents to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners;

{C} Your Lordships may be pleased to issued a writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ order of directing the respondents to provide alternative residential arrangements and further be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately give compensation to the petitioners.

{D} Any other and further relief as it deemed fit and proper may be passed.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are residing at the address mentioned in the cause title since about more than 35 years and are belonging to lower middle class of society. The petitioners are possessing the rent receipts as well as the tax bills, which are being regularly paid to the respondent- Corporation and are also having Adhar Card. The fact regarding payment of electricity bill in all these petitioners, majority of them are senior citizens residing with their families. The Public Notice dated 06.02.2020 has been pasted on the house, indicating the petitioners to vacate the premises within 20 days or else the respondent No.1-Railway Authority will demolish the portion, which is offending. The case of the petitioners that though the public notice was issued but no individual notices have been issued to the petitioners. On the contrary, petitioners are provided with electricity connection having drinking water facility and in view of the fact that petitioners are residing since number of years, opportunity of hearing ought to have been given. As a result of this, by way of this petition, a challenge is made to the public notice dated 06.02.2020.

2.1. Pursuant to the notice having been issued by the court in the Month of December, 2020, by directing the respondents to maintain status quo, the Railway Authorities and respondents have appeared and contesting party i.e. respondent No.4 has submitted a detailed affidavit-in-reply and after having noticed that for a pretty long period, the interim relief is operative, the request is made to take up the matter for hearing as for the purpose of safety and security, the public land deserves to be vacated, to the extent which the petitioners have encroached. With these backgrounds, the petition is taken up for hearing, in which the learned advocate Mr. R.M. Parmar appearing for the petitioners has submitted written submissions in addition to what has been stated in the petition. Much emphasize is made by the learned advocate is to the effect that no individual notices have been given and as such, action of uprooting the petitioners is in violation of principles of natural justice. It has been stated before the Court that the petitioners are residing since number of years and as such, they are paying regularly the tax, the electricity bills and charges related to other amenities, no action be initiated. In substance, the learned advocate for the petitioners has projected that they have got a fundamental right to stay on the premise/land, where they are residing and as such, the relief prayed be granted in the interest of justice.

3. As against this, learned advocate Ms. Archana U. Amin appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 contesting party has submitted a detailed affidavit-in-reply indicating that these petitioners have extended their construction beyond the Railway Polls whereon WR is written. The petitioners have crossed the boundary limits and entered into