The court considered the unauthorized use of land by the public for over 100 years and directed the railway to construct a road for public use, with the provision to divert the road in the future if needed for railway projects.

1. By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This review petition has been preferred by Senior Divisional Engineer (East), Ranchi seeking review of order dated 12.09.2008 passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 1114 of 2008.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent (Baidyanath Prasad) preferred one writ petition in the form of 'Public Interest Litigation', which has been registered as W.P. (PIL) No. 1114 of 2008. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner prayed that the authorities of the South Eastern Railway as also the Secretary, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (R.R.D.A) be directed to stop the operation of earth removing work which is taking place for construction of drains from Katharkocha to Birsa Chowk and further the authorities of the South Eastern Railway be directed to construct a pucca road from Birsa Chowk to Katharkocka or to construct underground railway crossing at Katharkocha and in the alternative, connect the road to Katharkocha railway bridge taking into consideration the interest of the people living in that area.

4. The respondent-railway authority submitted that construction of road, as suggested by the writ petitioner, is not possible as it is Railways' land near Railway line and is needed by Railway. However, it was admitted that the land was used for road but unauthorizedly by the petitioner and the residents of the locality for last more than 100 years and new road is not required for the people living in that area.

5. The R.R.D.A also took the same stand and admitted that the road which is being used by public belongs to South Eastern Railway and, therefore, they are not in a position to upgrade the road which, according to respondent-Railway, is unauthorizedly used by the commuters.

6. After taking note of the fact referred above, the Division Bench of this Court observed as under:

It is no body's case that this land which is being used by the people at large should be taken away from the railways and no one has come forward to assert that the land do not belong to the railways. Hence, we although accept the contention of the counsel for the railways that the land belongs to hem, we cannot ignore the fact that it is being used by the general public for the last 100 years and yet it has not been converted into a pucca road. But we are also equally conscious of the fact that if the railway has any project in future to up-grade the railway tracks, they cannot be prevented from doing so merely because the road is being used by the public. But, as of now, they do not have any project to use this land in any manner than to allow the commuters who have been consistently and regularly using it.

7. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondent-railway to coordinate with the R.R.D.A for constructing a pucca road, which at present is being used by the commuters with a rider that if, in future, the respondent-railway wants to use this land for any other purpose, they can divert this road to any other place for allowing ingress and outgress of the public by providing an alternative site for the road.

8. In the same order, in last but one, contention of learned counsel for the South Eastern Railway that the South Eastern Railway has already a project for the use of the land, which is due to be started shortly and hence will require this land, was taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court and it was observed that the liberty already referred may be availed by seeking a direction from this Court for modification or withdrawal of this Order, by which, road is ordered to be constructed.

9. Being aggrieved against order dated 12.09.2008, this review petition has been filed whereas the writ petitioner has field a Contempt Petition being, Cont. (Civil) Case No. 179 of 2009, on the ground that in spite of order dated 12.09.2008, referred above, road was not constructed.

10. In the contempt petition, on 27.7.2009, after recording statement of learned counsel for the petitioner