1 2026:CGHC:9199-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 173 of 2026 Subhash Chandra Agrawal S/o Late Shri Manoharlal Agrawal Aged About 68 Years Marwadi Hotel, Budhwari Bazar, Railway Station Bi- laspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) ... Appellant versus 1 - South East Central Railway Through The General Manager, S.E.C.R. Zonal Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Estate Officer Additional Divisional Railway Manager- I, S.E.C. Rail- way, D.R.M. Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Divisional Railway Manager (D.R.M.) D.R.M. Office, Bilaspur, Chhat- tisgarh. (Respondent No. 3) 4 - Senior Divisional Engineer (Settlement) South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 4) 5 - Assistant Divisional Engineer (Settlement- 2) South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 5) 6 - Senior Section Engineer (Works) Market, South East Central Rail- way, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 6) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondents/Railways : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23 .02 .2026 1 Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.02.23 14:23:28 +0530 2 Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents/ Railways. 2 By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in WPC No.6490/2024 has challenged the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 3 It has been pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the appel- lant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ Railway that in an identical matter, this Bench had already dis- missed WA No. 131 of 2026 (Aslam Hussain vs. South East Central Railway & Others) and batch vide order dated 11.02.2026, observing as follows : “8. From perusal of the order impugned it reveals that there is no existing lease in favour of the appellants though Railway accepted the lease rent/premium and other taxes time to time. In absence of any lease in favour of the appellants, their status would become unauthorized occupants. Railways is the absolute owner, and occupants without a valid, subsisting, and registered lease agreement are considered encroachers subject to immediate removal. Once a lease expires and is not renewed, the lessee (tenant) no longer has a vested or lawful right to possess the leased land. The Railways is not obligated to provide alternative accom- 3 modation or rehabilitation to such individuals as there is no policy exists under the commercial department of Railway. The ownership of all land held by the Railways vests in the Central Government (Union of India) and the Railways have a "statutory obligation" to remove en- croachments. 9 The learned Single Judge has considered clause- 3.1 of the circular dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure-P/8) (in WPC No.6163 of 2024) and afÏdavit filed by the Rail- way. In paragraph 7 of the afÏdavit filed by the Railway on 15.01.2026 (in WPC No.5086 of 2024), it has been contended that there is no policy exists under the com- mercial department for rehabilitation of the shop owners in lieu of dismantling of their existing shop and also for allotment of shop directly to the existing shop owner in lieu of dismantling of their existing shop. The learned Single Judge has also considered the issue of allotment of plot to M/s Haldiram as it was allotted after an e-auc- tion proceeding and in that e-auction proceeding the ap- pellants have not participated. Since there is no existing lease in favour of the appellants, the single Judge has held that they have no vested right to continue with the subject premises and for eviction of land notices were issued to the appellants and Railway is in need of con- struction of extension portion of railway station for which a short period was left. The learned Single Judge after considering the necessity for construction of extension of railway station and further that the appellant’s lease were not renewed, held them dis-entitled for any relief for their rehabilitation as there was no existing policy of rehabilitation under the commercial department of the railway and had disposed of the writ petitions. The Rail- way administrations are empowered to terminate or refuse renewal of leases for land that is required for op- 4 erational purposes, maintenance, safety zones, or de- velopment projects. Even long-term possession of rail- way land does not grant ownership right. 10 After adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material annexed with the writ petitions and writ appeals, this court is also of the opin- ion that the order passed by learned Single Judge is in accordance with law as the appellants have no vested right to remain in possession of the subject premises when they had no any existing lease in their favour from the concerned department. 11 In writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infir- mities are being shown in the impugned order. From pe- rusal of entire material placed on record, we do not find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge which warrants interference of this court. 12 The judgment cited by the counsel for the appel- lants is of no help to them as the facts and considera- tion in that case is distinguishable to the facts and con- sideration of the present case. In that case, the Supreme Court stayed the high court order for the mass eviction of residents who claimed long-term, 50-70 year possession, noting that a "practical solution" and reha- bilitation must be considered, although this does not le- galize the encroachment itself. 13 Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 131 of 2026 and batch, this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. 5 4 Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identi- cal to WA No. 131 of 2026 and batch, this Court deems it appro- priate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 131 of 2026 and batch. 5 Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the order dated 11.02.2026 passed in WA No. 131 of 2026 (Aslam Hussain vs. South East Central Railway & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet