IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.110 of 2026 Shaukat Ali …… Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …... Respondents With W.P.(C) No.122 of 2026 With W.P.(C) No.123 of 2026 With W.P.(C) No.124 of 2026 ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Ayush, A.C to ASGI ---------

03/Dated: 15 ^th January, 2026

1. The present writ petition being W.P.(C) No.110 of 2026 has been filed for the following relief :-

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing of the notice dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure- 4) issued by the Senior Section Engineer (Work)/Land, South Eastern Railway, (respondent No.4), whereby and whereunder direction has been given to completely vacate the premises alongwith all the belongings by 04.01.2026 failing which the entire structure would be demolished by 08.01.2026; (ii) further for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing of the notice contained in Letter No.543 dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure-3) issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer, East, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur, (respondent No.3), whereby and whereunder 30 day time have been granted to vacate the Shop No. SS-14/TATA, admeasuring 360 Sq.Ft. which was allotted by the Railway;

(iii) upon quashing of the aforesaid notice dated 10.11.2025 and 31.12.2025, for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction particularly writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to not dispossess the petitioner from the plot pertaining to Shop No. SS-14/TATA, admeasuring 360 Sq. Ft.

without following the due process of law;

(iv) alternatively, for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide space for the shop to the petitioner on payment of the License Fees as fixed by the respondents and on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to impose;

(v) for issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as maybe deemed fit and proper and for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

2. Query has been raised by this Court whether the land, in question, is required by the railways for its project or being vacated otherwise.

3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI, appearing for the respondent-railways, has specifically submitted that the entire area/ land is required for the development of the railway station under the scheme known as “Gati Shakti”.

4. It has further been specifically submitted by the learned ASGI that the land, in question, is falling on 6^th / 8^th lane road, to be constructed, as per the subsidiary scheme of “Gati Shakti”.

5. The respondent-railways is directed to file specific affidavit to the effect that:-

“If the land is required for the development of the railway station, then the respondent-railways is free to proceed, but if it is not required for the same, then the respondents should not proceed further without permission of this Court.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought for adjournment to get instruction from the clients whether they are ready for the alternative prayer for rehabilitation scheme.

8. As prayed for, put up these cases on 19.01.2026.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

15^th January, 2026

Ravi-Chandan/-