Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010037262026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/52/2026 SRI PRABIN BORO AND 8 ORS S/O LATE SONESWAR BORO, R/O WARD NO 1, T.B. ROAD, TANGLA, DIST. UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM, PIN 78421 2: PRANENDU BIKASH GHOSH S/O SRI MANTU LAL GHOSH 3: BIJOY AGARWALL S/O LATE BALACHAND AGARWALLA 4: ASHOK SAHA S/O SRI SURESH CHANDRA SAHA 5: SANJAY MORE S/O LAE RAM GOPAL MORE 6: SUDIP SAHA S/O LATE BHABANI SAH 7: SHIV SHANKAR GUPTA S/O LATE MADHU GUPTA 8: SOBODH SAHA S/O LATE SURESH CH SAHA 9: SMT. MAYA RANI PAUL W/O LATE NARAYAN PAU VERSUS THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL REGION REPRESENTED BYPRINCIPAL SEOETARY BODOLANDTERRITORIAL COUNCILF ECRETARIAGBOEFA NAGAR KOKAJHARHODOLAFTD TERRITORIAL REGION,BTR, ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDALGURI DIST. UDALGURI BTR ASSAM. 4:THE ESTATE OFFICER RANGIA REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER III N.F. RAILWAY RANGIA For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Khataniar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Deputy SGI Mr. B. C. Muchahary, SC, BTC Mr. P. Saikia, GA, Assam –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 09.03.2026 (AshutoshKumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Advocate for the appellants; Mr. B. C. Muchahary, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council, and Mr. P. Saikia, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The appellants claim to have been operating petty commercial Page No.# 3/5 activities, such as, shops catering to the requirements of railway passengers, on the land belonging to the North East Frontier Railways, at the Tangla Railway Station, for approximately five decades. The appellants or their predecessors were granted temporary Land License Agreement by the railways for commercial use of the land, requiring payment of license/renewal fees. Over the time, license/renewal fees were paid in the name of the predecessors of the appellants, but the successors, some of whom are the appellants herein, paid the license/renewal fees and also sought transfer of right over the land, leading to disputes over their legal status. However, later in the year 2024, the railways decided to upgrade the railway platforms and modernize the same to provide better passenger amenities under the “Amrit Bharat Station” Scheme, a Government of India initiative. To modernize the railway stations, as referred to above, a decision was taken to invoke Clause 20 of the License Agreement in cancelling such agreement with a Notice to the licensees and, ultimately, to resume the possession of the land without any liability for the loss, if any, to the licensees, for the reason that under such licenses, the occupation was explicitly temporary and exclusively for carrying out commercial activities and not for residential purposes. Accordingly, the agreements entered into with the appellants/predecessors of the appellants were cancelled; their licenses were terminated and they were asked to vacate the land. Such termination of temporary licenses was questioned by the appellants before the Civil Courts by filing Title Suits and Misc. applications and they succeeded in getting temporary injunction, which Page No.# 4/5 ultimately stood vacated. It was only thereafter that the appellants preferred the writ petition before this Court seeking to quash the notices received by them and also for preventing the authorities from evicting them without due process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1971”). Alternatively, it was prayed that the appellants and other similarly situated persons be provided with rehabilitation or alternative accommodation, as they had lost their long possession over the land in question and such termination of their licenses had led to abrupt loss of their livelihood resulting in socio-economic hardships. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, held that the appellants were holders of temporary licenses for commercial use of the land in question and they could not have been termed as “unauthorized occupants” under the Act of 1971, for the process ingrained in the afore- noted Act to be applicable to the case of the appellants. In fact, the possession of the land by the appellants was purely temporary, controlled by the agreement, which provided that the railways could resume such possession, whenever it wanted, after giving 30 days’ notice to such licensees/settlees. The railways have taken a decision to repossess such land for the purpose of giving effect to the government initiative under the “Amrit Bharat Station” scheme to modernize the railway stations for making them more passenger-friendly with good access, landscaping, etc., for which the appellants were served with notices to vacate the land, which they are under obligation to do. The rehabilitation measures may be undertaken by the railways, but Page No.# 5/5 it cannot be directed for, for the reason of there being no evidence of the appellants being destitutes, or flood-hit, or landless. All that we can say for the present is that in case there is modernization of the railway station with kiosks for the facilities of the passengers and, in the event of the appellants applying for license for running such kiosks, their applications be considered, but this would purely depend on the scheme of the railways in that regard. But finding no fault with the judgment impugned in the present appeal, we dismiss the same. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant