The main legal point established in the judgment is that a license is a personal right and does not create an interest in the property itself. The court emphasized that the occupation of the Railway land without a renewed license was unauthorized and unlawful.

Judgment

S.C. Parija, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the Railway authorities-opposite parties, in trying to evict the petitioner from the Railway land in question, with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to grant licence to the petitioner for the said land, which is under his occupation since the time of his father.

2. The brief facts of the case is that one Bholanath Barik, who is the father of the present petitioner, had been granted temporary licence of the Railway land by the opposite parties in the year 1972 for a period of one year, for agricultural purpose under the “Grow More Food” scheme, measuring Ac.1.38 dec., situated between K.M.410/12 to K.M.411/01 (between Cuttack-Balikuda) down side, which was valid upto 30.6.1973. The said licence was being renewed by the Railway authorities from time to time on payment of requisite fees. In March, 1973, the father of the petitioner had written a letter to the Divisional Engineer, South-Eastern Railway, Khurda Road, as per Annexure-3, to permit him to dig a katcha shallow well on the land for the purpose of irrigation, with the undertaking that while relinquishing the said land, he shall restore the same to its original state, before handing over possession of the same.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that though no formal permission was granted, the father of the petitioner had dug a well on the land in question for the purpose of irrigation. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the adjoining land belonging to the Railway was lying vacant and unutilized, the father of the petitioner had occupied the said land for the purpose of agriculture and this fact having come to the knowledge of the Railway authorities, they had intimated to the father of the petitioner vide Annexure-5 that as he is occupying Ac.3.00 dec. of Railway land, against the sanctioned of allotment of Ac.1.38, he is liable to pay difference of occupation fee for the excess area.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that as he was in occupation of the excess Railway land and had constructed a temporary cow-shed on the same, he had intimated the Railway authorities to consider issuance of licence in respect of the said excess Railway land occupied by him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner in occupation of the Railway land measuring Ac.3.00 dec. since the time of his father and is operating a cycle stand on the land in question for his livelihood, the Railway authorities should be directed not to evict the petitioner from the said land. It is further submitted that as the petitioner is in occupation of the land since the time of his father, the Railway authorities be directed to grant licence in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said land, on payment of requisite licence fee.

6. Learned counsel for the Railways with reference to the counter affidavit filed submits that Railways had floated a scheme in the name and style of “Grow More Food” and for the said purpose, certain lands of the Railways were identified to be allotted to outsiders on temporary licence basis, for the purpose of agriculture. The father of the petitioner, one Bholanath Barik had submitted an application for temporary allotment of the Railway land for agricultural purpose under “Grow More Food” scheme and accordingly, Railway land measuring Ac.1.38 dec. from K.M.410/12 to K.M.411/01 (between Cuttack-Balikuda) down side was allotted in his favour in the year 1972, for a period of one year. Subsequently, the said licence was renewed from time to time upto 1992-93. After 1992-93, no licence was granted to the father of the petitioner and no licence fee was collected from him.

7. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile the Railway Board took a decision that the Railway land given to the State Government or outsiders or Railway employees should be resumed back for the purpose of afforestation. Accordingly, no further licence was issued in favour of the