Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Dr. S. Muralidhar, B.P. Routray, JJ.
Hrudananda Biswal - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 6675 of 2003
Decided On : 31-05-2021
Right of Passage - Railway Land Dispute - Indian Railway Code for Engg. Department (1993 edition) - Orissa Development Authority Act - Meridian Global Funds Limited Management Asia Ltd. v. Securities Commission - Motilal Padampat Sugar Mill Company Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh - Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal - State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a right of passage over railway land to access a public road on the eastern side of his plot. The railway authorities refused permission, citing security concerns and lack of alternative access. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the refusal and a mandamus to grant passage rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition after 18 years of pendency, citing the absence of an unequivocal assurance or promise from the railways, lack of alteration of position by the petitioner relying on such assurance, and the presence of an approach road to the petitioner's plot. The court also noted the inadequacy of pleadings and evidence to establish an easementary right.
Issues: Disputed right of passage over railway land, applicability of promissory estoppel, and establishment of easementary right.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to establish an unequivocal assurance or promise from the railways and did not alter his position relying on such assurance. The court also noted the inadequacy of pleadings and evidence to establish an easementary right.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - Aggrieved by the refusal of the General Manager, South Eastern Railways, Kolkata (Opposite Party No.2) to accord him a right of passage over railway land in order to gain access to a public road on the eastern side of the plot purchased by him, the Petitioner approached this Court with the present writ petition in 2003.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the letter addressed to him on 6th July, 1993 by Opposite Party No.2 refusing such permission as well the communication addressed, almost ten years thereafter on 27th March, 2003, by Opposite Party No.2 to the then Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), Odisha reiterating the decision.
3. The background facts are that, the Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the property situated on Plot No.1422/1493 (P) under Khata No.668 of mouza Ashok Nagar, Sub-Registry Bhubaneswar City (hereafter "the plot"), which he purchased by means of a Registered Sale Deed dated 21st April, 1977. The Record of Rights (RoR) in respect of the plot is stated to have been mutated thereafter in the Petitioner"s name.
4. The Petitioner states that he applied for and got building permission from the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) for constructing a six-storied building over the plot. While on three sides of the plot there are lands belonging to other private persons, the eastern side of the plot faces a public road. However, according to the Petitioner, when the construction work on the plot was in progress some time in 1990, it was obstructed by the Railways on the plea that the land between the Petitioner"s plot and the public road belongs to the Railways and could not be used for transporting materials to the construction site.
5. According to the Petitioner, to buy peace and set the matter at rest, he made an application to the Railway authorities to grant him permission to utilize the said land for the purpose of ingress and egress to his plot from the public road. According to the Petitioner, by letter dated 31st July 1990, the Railway authorities informed that they had no objection for a passage of 3.5 meters to 8.5 meters over the land to facilitate access of the Petitioner to his plot. A sketch map was also enclosed with the said letter.
6. According to the Petitioner, on the basis of the sketch map he constructed the approach road strictly as per the specifications. According to him, he utilized the road for carrying building materials to his site and with such materials the petitioner constructed a four-storied structure in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the BDA. When the construction was in progress, the Petitioner received letter dated 6th July 1993 from Opposite Party No.2 which stated: 'It is regretted to inform you that the passage right as asked for, is not agreed to.'
7. According to the Petitioner, the RoR in respect of the said land between the Petitioner"s plot and the public road as of 1983 shows it to be in the name of the G.A. Department, Government of Odisha and was also described as 'Road'. It is accordingly contended that the obstruction by the Railways by fencing the eastern boundary wall of the Petitioner"s plot with a barricade was illegal and was required to be removed forthwith. The Petitioner made a representation to that effect to the BDA.
8. According to the Petitioner, by letter dated 21st November, 1995, the Divisional Railway Manager (Engg), S.E. Railways, Khurda Road (Opp. Party No.4) informed the Petitioner"s Contractor M/s. R.D.B Industries Ltd. ("M/s. RDB") that the Railways had no objection for the passage right to the Petitioner"s plot and asked the Contractor to attend its office to complete the necessary formalities.
9. Thereafter the Petitioner was informed that approval had been sought from the headquarters and after such approval, the formalities would be completed. When there was an inordinate delay in granting approval, M/s. RDB filed O.J.C. No.15483 of 1997 in this Court. The said writ petit
AI
The doctrine of promissory estoppel requires an unequivocal assurance or promise, alteration of position by the promisee relying on such assurance, and equity in favor of enforcing the promise agains....
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for a right to passage, as an alternative route was provided and the land was leased to developers.
Long-term use of a passage can establish prescriptive easement rights, overriding claims of exclusive ownership if not substantiated.
The PPE Act allows for eviction of unauthorized occupants, but due process and natural justice must be observed in such proceedings.
The main legal point established is that the nature of the right claimed and the absence of mention of agreement termination in eviction notices determine the applicability of the Public Premises (Ev....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
