1 / 7 2025:CGHC:40106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4254 of 2025 Lal Chand Agrawal S/o Late Raghunath Prashad Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Silyari, Police Station- Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Railway Federation of Railway Officer’s Association Office, 256-A, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi – 110001. 2 - South East Central Railways Through Office of Senior Section Engineer (Works)/ Bhatapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Divisional Railway Manager Officer Raipur NH 200, Shrinagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492014. 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Tahsildar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Patwari Halka No. 85 Village Gram Panchayat Silyari Sub Tehsil Dharsiwa District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3/UOI : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSG For State/Respondents No.4 to 7 : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/08/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.12 17:06:46 +0530 2 / 7 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction and directing the Respondents to maintain the status quo with respect to the disputed land and immediately halt all siding-related operations and the movement of heavy vehicles on the questioned land/road at Village Silyari, until the inter- departmental committee, as directed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, completes its work and an appropriate lawful decision is taken, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction and directing the Respondent authorities to consider on the Petitioner’s representation dated 01.08.2025 within a time-bound manner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioner. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the operation carried out by the Respondent SECR in relation to the continuing operation of a railway goods siding at Village Silyari, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. because of that the movement of heavy vehicles related to siding operation passes directly in front of his residential and commercial premises causing serious safety hazards. 3. The brief facts of this case are that the Petitioner is a permanent 3 / 7 resident of Village Silyari, where he has been residing for more than 40 years. His residential house and shop, situated on Khasra No. 801/19 admeasuring 0.081 hectares, are located adjacent to the railway siding and near the railway crossing. The Petitioner has been persistently raising concerns regarding the unsafe and disruptive movement of heavy vehicles related to siding operations which pass directly in front of his residential and commercial premises, causing serious safety hazards, daily inconvenience, and loss of business. Despite several representations to the Divisional Railway Manager and other concerned authorities on various dates including 25.06.2020, 14.07.2020, and 24.01.2021, no remedial action has been taken by the Respondents. 4. The Petitioner was earlier constrained to approach this Court through WPC No. 2429/2021 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 15.09.2021, wherein this Court observed that the dispute regarding the ownership of land was a matter of evidence and directed that if notices were issued under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the Petitioner would be entitled to establish his rights in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Petitioner also approached the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT), Central Zone Bench, Bhopal, through Original Application No. 08 of 2025, highlighting environmental degradation and misuse of land. The Hon'ble Tribunal, vide order dated 25.07.2025, directed the formation of an inter-departmental committee involving the Revenue Department, Railways, and officers nominated by the 4 / 7 District Collector to identify and demarcate the railway land and remove encroachments, if any. In compliance with the said order, the Petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 01.08.2025 to the Divisional Railway Manager, requesting that siding activities be suspended in the disputed area until the committee's work was completed and a lawful determination made. However, the Respondents have failed to take any action on the said representation. The siding operations continue unabated, in clear contravention of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal and the assurances made by the Respondent-Railways before this Court. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the continued movement of heavy vehicles on a narrow path passing through a residential area poses a grave risk to public safety, violates the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, and undermines judicial directions and environmental safeguards. He would next contend that despite multiple representations and specific judicial directions from this Court in WPC No.2429/2021 and the direction issued by the National Green Tribunal, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities is a grave violation of petitioner’s fundamental rights including the right to live and livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the 5 / 7 submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the Railways Department has constructed the road on the land which belongs to the Railways. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. This Court in WPC No.2429 of 2021 has passed the following order on 15/09/2021 which is reproduced hereinbelow:- 6. Since the statement has been made by the respondent- Railways in their affidavit and the reply that they are not going to demolish the house of the petitioner or forcefully evict the petitioner, the apprehension of the petitioner is settled at rest. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of certain land for which the respondent- ailways has made a marking and the respondent- Railways claims otherwise that the marking, where it is made, belongs to Railways. Therefore, it is a disputed question of facts. In such case, at the threshold, it cannot be conclusively held that the land belongs to the petitioner or to the Railways as it is a issue which is to be settled after evidence is adduced. The respondent-Railways in their reply have stated that they have proposed and intended to issue a notice under the Act of 1971, therefore the apprehension of the petitioner at this stage that forceful demolition would be carried out is without any justification. 7. In view of such statement made by the respondent- Railways, if the subsequent notices are issued under the Act of 1971, then it would be open for the petitioner to establish the fact that the land for which the notices are issued belongs to the petitioner. If it is so established, the competent authority would pass the order accordingly and shall decide the case in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid direction/ observation, the writ petition stands allowed to the above extent. 9. The National Green Tribunal Central Zone Bench, Bhopal in Original Application No.08/2025 (CZ) {in the matter of Lalchand Agrawal Vs. Union of India & others, decided on 30/07/2025} has 6 / 7 held thus in paras 49 & 50 which are quoted below:- 49. On the basis of above contention and argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this is a case of removal of encroachment and not the air pollution or water pollution as discussed in the order of the Hon'ble High Court. This is a matter to be taken by the Railway Department according to rules. The Collector/District Magistrate is the custodian of the property of Central Government and the State Government and also the representative to protect the land and protect the rule of law. The matter is purely identification and measurement and it is expected that by means of constituting an inter-departmental committee including the Revenue Department, Railway, and other officers nominated by the Collector, the land of the railway under dispute must be identified and protected and in case of any encroachment the encroachment must be removed immediately without any delay within a shorter period not more than three months so that the matter of dispute between the parties which has been contested up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court must be amicably and legally settled for all the times to avoid any conflict in the locality or the operation of the railway or the grievances of the applicants. 50. In light of the contention raised by the learned counsel of the parties, we are of the view that commercial activities which are within the concept of sustainable development cannot be restricted and a balance should be made between the sustainable development and maintenance of environmental laws. The public health and maintenance of air quality is the constitutional mandate while sustainable development is also required for economic development of the nation. Accordingly, the State Pollution Control Board should periodically monitor the air quality index and when air quality is not within the control, the necessary directions be issued for taking remedial measures. During the period when the air quality is within the parameter laid down by the State Pollution Control Board, the functioning of the loading and unloading have no problem. A scientific study is required to be taken about the contribution of ratio of load of pollution caused by loading and unloading, the clinker at the place. If the pollution load is for other reasons, the Railway Department should not be solely accounted for that reason. Decisions are required to be taken after considering all relevant factors causing increase of 7 / 7 pollution. In view of the above it is further directed that during the period when the Ambient Air Quality is as per prescribed standard and increase is not solely for the reasons of siding work, the loading and unloading of the clinkers should not be restricted. The State Pollution Control Board should periodically monitor the Ambient Air Quality within the area and necessary remedial action should be taken immediately and the regulation issued by CPCB by the name "inventorisation of railway siding and guidelines for their environment management" and directions of expert committee as noted above must be strictly observed with. 10. From perusal of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal it is crystal clear that the Tribunal has already decided the matter and thereafter, the petitioner has submitted the representation before the Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Raipur. Since the construction of the road is beneficial for the public at large, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the stay order cannot be passed. However, the DRM, SECR, Raipur, is directed to decide the application / representation submitted by the petitioner dated 01/08/2025 (Annexure P/6), in an objective manner, expeditiously as soon as possible in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authority shall decide the same on its own merits. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu