Page No.# 1/21 GAHC010143872022 2026:GAU-AS:7666 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5082/2022 ARUNODAY CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT PALLAVI HOUSE, BHANGAGARH, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM-781005, REPRESENTED BY ITS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR NAMELY SRI AVADESH LAHOTY, FATHERS NAME SRI OM PRAKASH LAHOTY, RESIDENT OF J.P. AGARWALA ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL SADAN, NEW DELHI. 2:THE RAILWAY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (LAND AND AMENITIES) RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GAUHATI-11 ASSAM 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL ENGINEER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY RANGIYA ASSAM 5:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER Page No.# 2/21 NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY LUMDING ASSAM 6:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/I NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY LUMDING ASSAM 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/TM NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11. 8:THE FINANCIAL ADVISER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTANT OFFICER/EXPENDITURE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. A. Goyal. Advocate for the respondents : Ms B. Sarma, CGC :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA Date on which judgment is reserved : 19.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Page No.# 3/21 JUDGMENT&ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the following Demand notices issued by the Railway Authorities to the petitioner: - i) Demand notice dated 01.01.2009, whereby the Railway Authorities ex-parte revised the land licence fees for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 and thereby it was directed to recover Rs.9,39,132/- from the petitioner. ii) Demand notice dated 12.01.2009, whereby the Railway Authorities ex-parte revised the land licence fees for the period of 01.04.2002 to 31.3.2008 and thereby it was directed to recover Rs. 39,59,246/- from the petitioner. iii) Demand notice dated 06.10.2009, whereby the Railway Authorities ex-parte revised the land licence fees for the total period of 01.01.2002 to 2010and deducted an amount of Rs.59,03,259/- from the running bills of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid demand notices on the ground that the Railway Authorities have violated the guidelines of the Railways Board as contained in the circular No.2005/LML/18/8 dated 10.02.2005 andcircular No.W/214/Pt-VIII/W-4 dated 07.09.2005. The petitioner contends that since the aforesaid demand notices were issued in violation of Page No.# 4/21 the aforesaid two circulars, the demand notices are illegal, without authority of law and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside and quashed. 4. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is a registered small-scale industry engaged in the business of manufacturing Concrete Sleepers at their factory situated in Jagiroad, Morigaon, Assam for use by the respondents. The petitioner was awarded a contract for manufacture and supply of Monoblock Concrete Sleepers of metre-gauge railway to the Railway authorities to be supplied within a period of 5(five) years from the date of the contract order No.88/Track-II/22/18/1 dated 27.04.1988. Pursuant to the aforesaid contract, a Lease Agreement dated 28.06.1989 was executed between the petitioner and the Railway Authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner set up a manufacturing unit at Jagiroad covered by plot No.253 admeasuring an area of 8.34 Bighas (11,491.094 sq. mtrs) and started manufacturing for supplying of Concrete Sleepers from the said unit upon payment of required licence fee for used of the land provided by the respondent authorities for the aforesaid purpose. Subsequently, another plot of land admeasuring about 9,108.531 sq. mtrs was allowed to be used by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2003. Therefore, a total area of land under the possession of the petitioner is about 20,599.625 sq. mtrs. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that from 1988 till 2010, the Railway Authorities have issued 35 numbers of work orders in favour of the petitioner and one of the last work orders was issued on 17.12.2009, for which, necessary contract agreement was executed on 25.03.2010 vide No.CE/CS-21 of 2010. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner had paid the licence fees w.e.f. December, 1988 till November, 2008 to the Page No.# 5/21 respondent authorities as per the circulars issued by the respondent authorities. 6. It is further the case of the petitioner that Railway Board had issued a circular dated 10.02.2005 being No.2005/LML/18/8 to all the General Managers of the Indian Railways and Production Units regarding Policy guidelines for commercial licensing of railway land. In terms of the Clause 3 of the aforesaid circular dated 10.02.2005, for fixing of rates of licence fee, it was provided that the licence fee of plots would be continued to be fixed as a percentage of the land value, determined as per the procedure detailed in para-5 of the said circular. The percentage applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2004 to various types of plots have been described therein. Clause 4 of the aforesaid circular provides for fixation of land value, wherein it was provided that a market value would, however, be required to be taken to serve as a base value for working out rental fee payable and the same shall be fixed on the basis of the land value of the surrounding area as on 01.01.1985 as determined from the Revenue authorities and/or the authorities mentioned therein. It was also provided that the land value as worked out shall be increased every year, on the first of April, starting from 01.04.1986 at the rate 10% over the previous year’s land value to arrive at the land value for the following year based on which annual licence fee shall be fixed. From 01.04.2004 onwards, the land value shall be increased at the rate of 7% every year over the previous year’s value. It was also provided that for fresh cases of licensingof plots, the licence fee shall be fixed after obtaining the current value of the land and in very rare cases where it is not possible to obtain the current cost (reasons for which should be brought on record) the updated cost based on 01.01.1995 land price, should be adopted. It is contended by the petitioner Page No.# 6/21 that above mentioned Policy guidelines have been again reiterated in the Joint Engineering/Commercial and Accounts Circular No.W/214/Pt-VIII/W-4 dated 07.09.2005, with a minor modification i.e., specifying the date/period from which the rates of annual licence fee would be applicable. 7. Clause 3 of the aforesaid circular dated 10.02.2005 has been mentioned in the Clause 6 of the circular dated 07.09.2005 with the abovementioned modifications. Similarly, Clause 5 of the circular dated 10.02.2005 regarding fixation of the land value has been reiterated in the Clause 7 and 8 of the circular dated07.09.2005. It is seen that in terms of the aforesaid guidelines and circulars, the respondent authorities prepared necessary bills, which have been duly paid by the petitioner from time to time. 8. It is contented by the petitioner that while the aforesaid circulars were in force, the respondent No.6 issued a letter being Letter No.W/214/LM/CSF/JID/W-4/19 dated 01.01.2009 (signed on 31.12.2008) for recovery of Rs.9,39,132/- as licence fee for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 from the petitioner against the total land of 20,599.625 sq. mtrs used by the petitioner for its Sleeper factory. It was mentioned that the licence fee was assessed provisionally based on the value given by the Circle Officer, Mayang Revenue Circle vide letter No.My-16/2007/2172 dated 12.07.2007. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter dated 01.01.2009, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.6 on 08.01.2009 stating irregularities in fixation of such licence fee without following the circulars mentioned above. 9. It is contended by the petitioner that in spite of the aforesaid representation dated 08.01.2009, the respondent No.6 again issued another Page No.# 7/21 letter/Demand notice being No.W/214/LM/CSF /JID/W-4/116 dated 12.01.2009 mentioning that provisional licence fee of land under occupation of the petitioner was assessed up to 31.08.2008 on old rate of land value. It was stated that land value of the Jagiroad had been given by the Circle Officer, Mayang Revenue Circle, vide its letter dated 12.07.2007, year wise for the year 2000 to 2007 and based on the same, the land value, as well as licence fee also had been revised from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2008 and therefore, the difference of licence fee came to Rs.39,53,246/. So, a demand was issued to the petitioner to recover the above amount at the earliest. The petitioner again submitted a representation to the respondent No.6 and 7 on 27.01.2009 and 30.03.2009 respectively to fix the licence fee as per the Railway Board Guidelines.On 19.06.2009, respondent No.6 replied to the petitioner, vide its letter No.W/214/LMG/CC/GID/W-4 stating that intimation was received by the office of the respondent No.6 to recover the land rent of the concerned land based on the letter dated 23/24.10.02 and CGE/MLG’s letter dated 04.11.2004 and it was stated that the land was allotted temporarily from time to time against railway work and so, every time allotment of the land was fresh. Since, the petitioner was utilising the concerned land unauthorisedly, the letter was issued to the petitioner for recovery of the due licence fee. Thereafter, the respondent No.6 again issued a letter dated 06.10.2009 to the respondent No.7 with the reference to the letters dated 01.01.2009, 12.01.2009 and 19.01.2009, thereby, requesting to make an arrangement torecover a total amount of Rs.59,03,249/- i.e. the licence fee for period 08-09: Rs.9,39,132, licence fee for period 09-10: Rs.10,04,871/- and revised licence fee for the period 01.04.02-31.02.08: Rs.39,59,245/- from the petitioner. Page No.# 8/21 10. The petitioner received a letter dated 09.10.2009 from the office of General Manager (Works) thereby directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount within 7 days from the date of issue of the letter and on failure of depositing the said amount, the same shall be deducted from the running bills of the petitioner. On 03.03.2010, the petitioner had written to the Executive Engineer, NF Railway, Maligaon enclosing therein a statement showing the continuity of running contract from 1998 till the time, along with a copy of the contract agreement and requested him to direct the concerned authorities not to deduct the land license fee from petitioner’s running bill. The petitioner submitted another representation on 09.03.2010. In response to the representation dated 09.03.2010 of the petitioner, the Chief General Engineer, NF Railway issued a letter dated 06.04.2010 to the Senior Divisional Engineer, Lumding (respondent No.6) thereby, advising the respondent No.6 to follow the Railway Board’s policy guidelines as contained in the circular dated 10.02.2005 and 07.09.2005 respectively. It is contended by the petitioner that in the aforesaid letter, it had been clarified that the Sleeper factory land is to be classified under Category A of paragraph 6 of the Joint statement circular dated 07.09.2005 wherein annual license fee is fixed as 6% of the land value (from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.2004). 11. The petitioner wrote another letter dated 08.04.2010 to the respondent No.6, requesting him to provide the bills for land license fee as per Railway Board’s circular to pay the license fee up-to date. However, since no action was taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had approached the Gauhati High Court, by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.3032/2010, wherein, the High Court, vide its order dated 31.05.2010, disposed of the writ petition of the petitioner by remanding the matter to the Page No.# 9/21 respondent No.6 to consider the petitioner’s case by way of Speaking Order on the basis of the clarification issued by the Chief General Manager, NF Railway and taking into consideration other relevant facts including any order/circular holding the field at that point of time. It is contended by the petitioner that on 04.06.2010, a copy of the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2010, passed by the Gauhati High Court was furnished to the respondent authorities for compliance, which was duly received by them. However, in spite of that the respondent authorities, especially the respondent Nos.7 and 8 deducted an amount of Rs.48,53,249/- from the running bill of the petitioner in clear violation of the order dated 31.05.2010, passed by the Gauhati High Court. Subsequently, the respondent No.6, vide its order dated 15.07.2010 rejected the claim of the petitioner thereby, holding that the land in possession of the petitioner after June, 1995 is unauthorized and hence the license fee for unauthorized period has been reassessed on the basis of current land value as given by the State Government. 12. The petitioner contended that the Railway Authorities had issued 35 numbers of work orders for manufacturing of concrete sleepersduring the period of 1988 till 2010 on the same plot of land occupied by the petitioner. It is contended that for the aforesaid occupation, Railway authorities had been realizing the necessary licences fee from the petitioner. It is contended that on one hand, the respondents had been realizing the necessary license fees as per Railway Board's Circular and guidelines for allotting the land to the petitioners and on the other hand, the respondent authorities had been treating the said land under the possession of the petitioners as unauthorized one. Therefore,the claim of the respondent authorities that the petitioner was unauthorisedly holding the land is baseless. Page No.# 10/21 13. Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no un-authorised possession of land by the petitioner in the instant case. He submits that the petitioner had been issued work orders from time to time and a total of 35 numbers of work orders had been issued to the petitioner during the time 1988 till the year 2010. He submits that the petitioner got the possession of the land in view of the licence agreement that was entered into between the Railway authorities and the petitioner and the land was given specifically for the performance of the contract/work orders issued to the petitioner from time to time. He submits that the petitioner is aware that the Lease agreement was valid till the year 1995, however, though the same was not extended or renewed, the petitioner had been paying licence fee as per the request made by the Railway authorities from time to time. Therefore, in that situation, there cannot be a case of un-authorised possession of the aforesaid land by the petitioner. He further submits that the claim of the respondents that the petitioner’s case will fall under the fresh cases is also baseless as the petitioner is not required to get into a fresh agreement as the license agreement that was entered by the petitioner with the Railway authorities is still has to be treated as valid as the work orders were continuously issued to the petitioner. He submits that as per the Clause 27 of the Lease Agreement dated 20.06.1989, the license fee shall be liable to be enhanced as per the Standing Railway Rules issued from time to time. From the Clause 5 of the Circular dated 10.02.2005, ithas been made clear that the land value as worked out shall be increased every year on 1st April, starting from 01.04.1986 at rate of 10% over the previous year’s land value to arrive at the land value for the following year, based on which, the annual license fee shall be fixed. From 01.04.2004 onwards, the land value shall be Page No.# 11/21 increased at rate of 7% every year over the previous year’s value. He submits that in Clause 7 of the Circular dated 07.09.2005, it has been clarified that for pending cases, the Circular of 1985 would be followed from 01.01.1986 to 30.01.1995, Circular of 1995 would be followed from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.2004 and the Circular dated 10.02.2005 would be followed from 01.04.2004. He submits that Clause 8 of the aforesaid Circular dated 07.09.2005 providesthat for a fresh case of licensing of plots,the license fee shall be fixed after obtaining the current value of land and in very rare cases where it is not possible to obtain current cost, the updated cost based on 01.01.1985, land price should be adopted. 14. He submits that in spite of the aforesaidguidelines/directions, the respondent No.6in clear violation of the aforesaid guidelines, has fixed the license fee of the petitioner following the criteria fixed for fresh licensing of plots. He submits that the petitioner’s plot cannot be categorized as fresh case but it is a pending case, which had commenced from the year 1989. He submits that in the fresh cases of licensing of the plots, license fee shall come into effect prospectively from the issuance of the aforesaid circulars dated 10.02.2005 and 07.09.2005 and since the land in possession of the petitioner was allotted prior to the issuance of the aforesaid circulars, the land value of the petitioner should have been fixed on the basis of the land value of the surrounding area as on 01.01.1985. He submits that in spite of the several representations, the respondent authorities have illegally issued the impugned orders dated 01.01.2009, 12.01.2009 and 06.10.2009 to deduct Rs.59,03249/- as license fee of the petitioner’s plot of land from the running bill of the petitioner treating the case as fresh case of licensing of plots by the impugned order dated 15.07.2010 without following the Railway Board’s Page No.# 12/21 Circular and guidelines. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by challenging those orders, vide writ petition being WP(C) No.5403/2010. He submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authorities had already deducted Rs.59,03,249/- from the running bills of the petitioner and again further raised demand amounting to Rs.20,14,316/- after revising ex-parte the land license fees, accordingly, the petitioner, vide letter dated 29.08.2012 requested the respondents not to deduct the said amount as the petitioner had already paid the license fee for the year 2011-2012 as per the policy and guidelines of the Railway Board. He submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, there was a talk of settlement outside the Court and therefore, the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ petition. However, no settlement could be arrived at between the petitioner and the Railway and therefore, the petitioner again requested the Railway authorities to review the decision of the Railway authorities by issuing several letters. He submits that the Divisional Engineer directed the Deputy Chief Engineer/TR, NF Railway not to recover any license fees from the petitioner till the period after 30.06.1995 is being regularized. Thereafter, the Deputy Chief Engineer/TR, NF Railway vide letter dated 16.12.2015, informed the Sr. DEN/C/LMG about the requirement of renewal of the land license agreement as per the Railway Board’s guidelines dated 10.02.2005. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar writ petition being WP(C) No. 3341/2018 (Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & 7 Ors.) challenging similar kind of demand notices and subsequent recovery of amount, was filed before the Gauhati High Court by one of the similarly placed person and the Gauhati High Court, after hearing Page No.# 13/21 of the matter,was pleased to interfere with such demands and directed to calculate the land value and consequential license fee on the basis of the Clause 7 and 9 of the master circular dated 07.09.2005 till the license agreement is not entered into by the aforesaid aggrieved person along with the respondent Railway. The learned counsel submits that the instant case also falls in the similar footing and therefore, a similar relief should be granted to the petitioner in the instant case, as was directed in the order 20.01.2022 in the aforesaid WP(C) No.3341/2018. 16. The Railway authorities have filed their affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case, which was replied to by the petitioner. The stand of the Railways authorities is that an agreement for land license was executed between the Railways and the petitioner for the purpose of setting up a concrete Sleeper plant, vide contract agreement No.CE/43 which was signed on 28.07.1989 and was valid from December, 1988 to June, 1995 with a provision for renewal. The license agreement for 8.34 bighas, for which, the petitioner paid the license fees up to 1993-1994. However, after expiry of the license period, the petitioner was requested to make payment of the balance license fees and for signing of the renewal of the license agreement, vide letter dated 05.06.1996. In reply to the aforesaid letter dated 05.06.1996, the petitioner vide its letter No.RCC/PRC/P dated 27.06.1996 intimated the Railway Authoritiesthat as per the terms and conditions of the new contract executed with the Construction organisation, no licensing fee is to be paid for the land leased out by the Railways for the manufacturing of concrete sleeper. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the respondent authorities, vide letter dated 06.11.1996, intimated the petitioner that the petitioner has to deposit the licence fee up-to date prior to execution of the agreement with the Page No.# 14/21 construction organization and requested to send a photocopy of the agreement which has been executed with the construction organization to calculate the correct licence fee. However, in spite of several communicationswith the petitioner asking for payment of the outstanding licence fee and to vacate the Railway land in absence of valid licence agreement, the same was not carried out by the petitioner. 17. It is also contended by the Railways that in addition to the aforesaid 8.34 bighas of land, an additional land of 7.05 bighaswas also occupied by the petitioner, in respect of which, no license agreement was entered into with the Railway Authorities, despite requests made on behalf of the Authorities. It is stated that additional land occupied by the petitioner shall be treated as a fresh case and the valuation of the land shall have to be worked out as per the market value of the land prevailing at the time of occupation of the land. Therefore, the Railway authorities initiated the process for calculation of the licences fee for the land occupied by the petitioner as a fresh case, since, the petitioner was possessing the land without the valid licence agreement. It is stated by the Railways that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of licence fees since 1995 and despite frequent reminders from the Railways, outstanding was not paid and therefore, the Railways was compelled to initiate process for recovery from his running bills against the contract agreement for concrete sleeper manufacturing. It is stated that licences fee was calculated for the entire land under the occupation of the petitioner based on the land rate submitted by the Revenue Department and therefore, there was no violation on the part of the Railway authorities in passing the order dated 01.01.2009 and the subsequent orders. The Railways also took the stand that above mentioned WP(C) No.3341/2018 is not in the same Page No.# 15/21 footing with the instant case. The basic difference between the 2(two) writ petitions is that in WP(C) No.3341/2018, the parties had entered into only contract agreement but the parties did not enter into any license agreement. However, in the instant case, the parties had entered into contract agreement as well as license agreement. It is stated by the Railways that from the year 1988-89 to 2003-04, they had increased 10% of land value as per the Circular of 1985 and after that again from 2004-05 to 2017-18 Railways had increased 7% land value as per the master Circular dated 07.09.2005. Therefore, the aforesaid case i.e. WP(C) No.3341/2018 is not applicable to the instant case. 18. The learned CGC, for the Railways submits that in the instant case, there is no wrong committed by the Railway authorities in deducting the arrears of payment for license fee from the petitioner. She submits that the license fees werecalculated on the basis of the prevailing 2(two) Circulars and since the license agreement has already expired, the petitioner’s case has to be treated as a fresh case and therefore, the prevailing market rate of the land value has to be taken into account in calculating the license fee of the petitioner. She submits that in the case that has been referred by the petitioner i.e. WP(C) No.3341/2018, is not relevant to the instant case, as in that case, there was no license agreement entered into by the Railways and the petitioner. She submits that due to the prevailing Circulars and policy of the Railways, the land cannot be allotted to any person for the business of manufacturing of concrete sleepers without getting into a license agreement. And therefore, in view of the aforesaid position, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court had interfered with the impugned demand of the aforesaid case and thereafter, remanded the matter to the Railways authorities to consider the case of the aforesaid Page No.# 16/21 petitioner and if any new agreement is entered into, the same is to be treated as a fresh case. 19. However, in the instant case, since, in spite of several notices and requests to the petitioner for renewal of the agreement and in failure to vacant the plot of land, the petitioner did not come forward to renew his agreement with the Railways and also could not submit the copy of the Contract Agreement, it had supposedly entered into with the construction organisation. In view of the aforesaid, she submits that this case does not merit any interference of this Court. 20. After taking into account the submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as on perusal of the materials brought before this Court, it is discernible that the issue involved in the instant case is whether the petitioner’s case can be treated as a fresh case or as a pending case as the petitioner had earlier entered into a license agreement dated 28.06.1989, which has not been extended as per the requirements. It is seen from the license agreement dated 28.06.1989 that the agreement was specifically related to an area of 8.34 bighas of land and contract was valid for a period starting from December, 1988 to June, 1995 subject to renewal every year on payment of necessary license fees, in terms of prevailing Rules, Regulations and By-laws that are in force. 21. It is also seen that though there were certain requests from the Railway authorities for renewal of the aforesaid license agreement, somehow, the same has not been renewed in the instant case. It is also seen that though the license agreement was not renewed, the petitioner was allowed to carry out his manufacturing activities from the aforesaid plot of land and the petitioner Page No.# 17/21 has been issued several work orders even after the expiry of the aforesaid license agreement. It is also seen that the payments of license feeshave been paid by the petitioner from time to time for such occupationthough there may be certain defaults, late payments or non-payments in the case. 22. From the above, it is clear that thought the licence agreement was not renewed, by the action of the Railway authorities in issuing the works orders as well as allowing the petitioner to use the aforesaid plot of land, it cannot be stated that the case of the petitioner can be termed as a fresh case and not a pending case. However, as far as the additional plot of land measuring about 9,1008.531 sq. mts (7.05 bighas) is concerned, no separate licence agreement has been entered into between the Railways and the petitioner in the instant case, though the policy of Railways mandates that no land can be allotted toanyone without having any licence agreement for utilisation of the land. Therefore, it is clear that for utilisation of the additional 7.05 bighas of land allotted to the petitioner by the respondent Railways is not as per the Circulars of the Railways. 23. It is seen that the mandates of the Circular of 1995 as well as 2(two) Circulars of 2005, provides that no plot of land can be allowed for commercial use by the private parties without entering into a licence agreement. In the instant case, there is no dispute that for further additional land of 7.05 bighas, no license agreement was entered between the Railway authorities and the petitioner, which clearly goes against the mandates of aforesaid Circulars. Therefore, as far as, the additional land of 7.05 bighas is concerned, without getting into a fresh licence agreement, the Railway authorities could not have allowed the petitioner to utilise the aforesaid land. Page No.# 18/21 24. Be that as it may, since the Railway authorities had already allowed the petitioner to utilise the aforesaid land, the Railways authorities can obviously recover the licence fees for such utilisation of land as per the provisions of aforesaid 3(three) Circulars and if required, fresh licence agreement can be entered into between the parties. It is also seen that subsequent to the order dated 31.05.2010 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 3032/2010, the Railway authorities has passed the order dated 15.07.2010, wherein it is seen that since the agreement executed on 28.06.1989 was only for 5 years i.e. upto June, 1995, post June, 1995, the said agreement is termed as not valid. It is also seen from the aforesaid order dated 15.07.2010 that the possession of the land after June, 1995 by the petitioner had been termed as un-authorised. It is seen that by the aforesaid order, it had concluded that the Clause 5 of the Circular dated 10.02.2005 and Clause 7 of the Circular dated 07.09.2005 were not admissible in this case and the petitioner’s case would be considered as a fresh case and the licences fees shall be fixed after obtaining the current value of the land in terms of the Clause 5.3 of the Railway Board’s CircularNo.2005/LML/18/8 dated 10.02.2005 and as per the Clause 8 of the Joint Engineering/Commercial and Accounts Circular No.W/214/Pt-VIII/W-4 dated 07.09.2005. Therefore, it was stated in the aforesaid orderthat licence fee for the un-authorised period was re-assessed on the basis of the current land value as given by the State Government. However, it is seen from the aforesaid order that no mention or no consideration of the additional 7.05 bighas of land has been made in the aforesaid order. It is not found how the Railway authorities without any licence agreement allowed the aforesaid additional land to be occupied by the petitioner and how they have assessed the licence fees for the aforesaid land. Page No.# 19/21 25. Interestingly, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Railway authorities, a calculation sheet has been annexed as Annexure-H to the petition, showing the outstanding licence fees of the petitioner for the land licenced at Jagiroad, wherein, it is seen that licence fee was increased on the land value at the rate of 10% up to 2003-2004 and thereafter, from 2003- 2004, since the petitioner was given additional land of 7.05 bighas, the market value at that point of time@ Rs. 4 lakhs per bigha has been taken into account for the additional land. Whereas, licence fee for the initial allotment of 8.34 bighas of land was calculated taking the old rate itself. The chart also provided that from year 2004-05, the yearly increase of land value for calculation of licence fee was taken at the rate of 7%. The chart provides for calculation till 2017-2018. It is also seen from the chart that the petitioner had defaulted in payments from 1994-1995 till 2003-2004 and there were certain payments in the year 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2008-2009, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Thereafter, no payments could be seen to have been made by the petitioner. Therefore, from the documents, it is seen that there were several defaults in payment by the petitioner in the instant case to the Railway as far as licence fee is concerned. But the question remains is whether the petitioner case can be termed as a fresh case or a pending case. 26. As discussed above, though the agreement dated 28.06.1989 for the plot of land initially allotted i.e. 8.34 bighas, expired in June, 1995, the same was not renewed, but the Railway authorities had allowed the petitioner without evicting him to utilise the aforesaid land for the purpose of the petitioner and they have raised demands for payment of licence fee for the aforesaid land. There is no material brought before this Court to show that Page No.# 20/21 any serious attempt has been made by the Railway authorities to evict the petitioner from the aforesaid plot of land for its alleged un-authorised possession of land, rather the Railway authorities kept on demanding licence fees from the petitioner and provided the aforesaid calculation sheet (Annexure-H), wherein the Railway authorities had increased the value of land at 7% per annum as per the master Circular dated 07.09.2005. Therefore, by the conduct of the Railway authorities, it cannot be termed that the aforesaid agreement was, in fact, intended to have been ended by the Railway authorities in June, 1995. 27. Being so, in the instant case, it cannot be certainly concluded that the possession of land by the petitioner is un-authorised. It is also seen that the petitioner had contended that they had been issued 35 numbers of workorders by the Railway authorities during the period of 1998 till 2010 which is much after June, 1995. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case of the petitioner cannot be termed as a fresh case in terms of the aforementioned Circulars and the petitioner’s case has to be termed as a pending case for the initial allotment of 8.34 bighas of land. 28. Taking into account the entire aspects of the matter and also taking into consideration the Judgement and Order passedby the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and 7 Ors (WP(C) No.3341/2018)decided on 20.01.2022, this Court is of the view that the instant case be also remanded to the Railway authorities to calculate the land value and the consequent licence fee of the land in possession of the petitioner on the basis of the Clause 7 and 9 of the master Page No.# 21/21 Circular dated 07.09.2005. As far as the additional plot of land i.e. 7.05 bighas, it is upon the Railway authorities and the petitioner to get into a fresh licence agreement, if they so desire. As discussed above, the Railway authorities cannot allow the petitioner to utilise that additional 7.05 bighas of land, without getting into a licence agreement. 29. Needless to say, if the petitioner desires to enter into an agreement for the aforesaid additional plot of land i.e. 7.05 bighas, the Railway authorities will be at liberty to fix the licence fee as per the aforesaid Circulars, as a fresh case.The Railway authorities shall calculate the licence fee of the petitioner for the plot of land measuring 8.34 bighas, as per the aforesaid 3(three) Circulars, as a pending case. Accordingly, the impugned 3(three) demand notices are interfered with and the same are set aside. 30. The Railway authorities, on receipt of a certified copy of the instant Judgment and Order from the petitioner, within a period of 3(three) months, shall calculate the licence fee for both the plots of land in terms of the aforesaid 3(three) Circulars. After such calculation, provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner andupon submission of the necessary documents, pass a speaking order to that effect. The Railway authorities shall also take into account the money that has already been deducted from the running bill of the petitioner while passing such Speaking Order. 31. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant