Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010143872022 2026:GAU-AS:7666 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2015/2023 PCM CEMENT CONCRETE PVT LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE SITUATED AT PCM TOWER 2ND MILE SEVOK ROAD SILIGURI- 734001 WEST BENGAL. IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING THE PETITIONER COMPANY IS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NAMELY SRI DEBASISH BHADRA BEING THE MANAGER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SON OF LATE S.R. BHADRA A RESIDENT OF SILIGURI BAZAR SUKANTA PALLY KATHALTALA WARD NO. 32 SILIGURI- 734005 (WB) VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAIL SADAN NEW DELHI. 2:THE RAILWAY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ( LAND AND AMENITIES) Page No.# 2/11 RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 ASSAM. 4:THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/ LINE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY KATIHAR. ------------ Advocate for : MR. A GOYAL Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS 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.# 3/11 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. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the demand notice dated 13.01.2023 whereby, the Railway Authorities ex-parte revised the land licence fees for the period 2006-2007 to 2022-2023 and directed to recover Rs.86,19,961/- from the petitioner in violation of the Railway Board’s Circular and guidelines. 3. The petitioner case is that respondent authorities revised the land licence fee ex-parte and directed the petitioner to make a payment of Rs.86,19,961/- on the basis of the rate as calculated in the year 2005, which is in violation of the Railway Board’s guidelines as contained in the Circular No.2005/LML/18/8 dated 10.02.2005 as well as Circular No.W/214/Pt- VIII/W-4 dated 07.09.2005. 4. It is contended that the petitioner is a medium-scale industry engaged in the business of manufacturing concrete sleepers at their factory situated at New Jalpaiguri, NF Railway for the use by the respondents. The petitioner was awarded a contract for manufacture and supply of Monoblock concrete sleeper to the respondent authorities to be supplied against N.F. Railways Tender Notice No.24 of 1991. Pursuant to the said work order, a contract agreement dated 11.02.1992 was executed between the petitioner and the Railway authorities. It is contended that as per Clause 7 of the aforesaid work order, on the Contractor's request for making available a reasonable area of the Railway land for his work-site, site office, stores, labours, hutments, Page No.# 4/11 stacking place for materials and any other purpose connected with the work will be considered and provided by the Railways free of charge on such terms and conditions that may be prescribed by the purchaser through the purchase order. Accordingly, the Railway authorities allotted a piece of land admeasuring 3.09 acres at New Jalpaiguri. Subsequently, on the request of the petitioner, the Railway authorities allotted an additional land to the petitioner for execution of the aforesaid works. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid work order, the petitioner had set up a manufacturing unit at New Jalpaiguri under NF Railways admeasuring an area of 3.09 acres and started manufacturing for supply of concrete sleepers from the said unit upon payment of the required licence fee for the use of the land provided by the respondent authorities for the aforesaid purpose. Subsequently, an additional plot of land admeasuring 1.26 acres was allowed to be used by the petitioner in the year 2006. However, out of 1.26 acres, 0.46 acres of land was vacated by the petitioner on 25.03.2021. As a result, 0.80 acresof additional land is in possession of the petitioner. 6. It is contended by 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 line. The Clause 3 of the aforesaid Circular dated 10.02.2005, provides for fixing of rates of licence fees. It is also contended by the petitioner that policy and guidelines mentioned in the aforesaid Circular dated 10.02.2005 was 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 Page No.# 5/11 from which the rates of annual licence fee would be applicable. The 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 dated 07.09.2005. 7. It is contented that while the aforesaid Circulars were in operation, the respondent No.4 had issued a letter dated 13.01.2023for recovery of Rs.86,19,961/- as licence fee for the period 2006-2007 and 2022-2023 from the petitioner against the additional land admeasuring 0.80 acres in connection with sleeper factory. It is contended that the licence fee that was fixed in the aforesaid letter was based on the land value certificate issued by the DSR/Jalpaiguri and the Joint Engineer/Commercial Circular dated 07.09.2005. It is also contended that Rs.27,22,500/- per acres for the year 2005 wastaken from the land value certificateissued by DSR/Jalpaiguri. It is the contention of the petitioner that Clause 7 of the Master Circular 07.09.2005, the land value of the land shall be fixed on the basis of the land value of the surroundings area as on 01.01.1985, as determined from the concerned authorities. However, in the present case, land value of the land has been determined on the basis of value determined in the year 2005, without disclosing the method of determination. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter dated 13.01.2023, submitted several representations to the respondent No.3 on 18.01.2023, 09.02.2023 & 24.02.2023 respectively, regarding the irregularities/illegalities committed by the Railway authorities while issuing the letter dated 13.01.2023 and prayed for review of the same. However, the petitioner did not get any proper response from the Railway authorities till date. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter dated 13.01.2023, the petitioner has approached this Court. Page No.# 6/11 8. Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that instant case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High 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, wherein this Court held that useof Railway land given to a private party has to be by a way of a licence agreement as per the Circulars issued by the Railway authorities and any fixation of land price and consequent licence fee has to be made in terms of the aforesaid Circulars issued in the year 2005 i.e. the Circular dated 10.02.2005 and the Circular date 07.09.2005. It has further held that market value taken into account for the value of land can only be gone into as and when the Railway authorities enter into a licence agreement which they are bound to so do as per their own Circulars. He submits that since there is no agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Railway authorities for the additional plot of 0.80 acres of land, the fixation of land value and consequently the licence fee is in violation of the Circulars issued by the Railway authorities. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the instant case is required to be sent back to the Railway authorities for proper determination of the licence fee in accordance with the direction given by this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.(supra). 9. The respondent Railways authority has filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case and the same has been replied to by the petitioner. The Railways authority has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant writ petition by contending that petitioner’s company is situated in the State of West Bengal and cause of action for filing this writ petition arose in Katihar, which is in the State of Bihar. Further, impugned demand Page No.# 7/11 notice dated 13.01.2023, which is being challenged inthe writ petition has been issued by the Divisional Engineer/Line, N.F. Railway, Katihar. All the previous communications prior to the issuance of the demand notice and all the subsequent communications are by the Divisional Engineer/ Line, N.F. Railway, Katihar. Therefore, no cause of action or any part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. Therefore, this case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction itself. It is further contended that as per the contract agreement entered into between the parties on 14.08.2019, the petitioner is required to invoke the Arbitration Clause. However, in the instant case, the writ petition has been filed before this Court without invoking the Arbitration Clause. It is contended that as per the Master Circular on ‘Policy for Management of Railway land’ vide L.No.- 2021/LML/2515 dated 04.10.2020, issued by the Railway Boards New Delhi Item No.8 ‘Dispute Resolution’ clearly provides that any dispute arising in interpretation of this policy, land rates, land area etc., a standing committee of the concerned Railway Division shall examine all the issues and thereafter, submit recommendation in DRM whose decision shall be final and binding on all the parties. Therefore, it was contended that since, the instant case is also covered under the Policy for Management of Railway land, the petitioner ought to have invoked the Dispute Resolution Clause available in the aforesaid Master Circular. 10. Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as far as the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Railway, has submitted that contract agreement dated 11.02.1992 was entered between the petitioner and the General Manager, NF Railway, Maligaon at Guwahati. He further submits that initially, the lease rent Page No.# 8/11 for the factory land at New Jalpaiguri was also paid to the Chief Engineer, NF Railway, Maligaon. He has further submitted that the Senior Divisional Engineer, N.F. Railway, Katihar is within the jurisdiction of the NFR Railways, whose Head Quarter is at Maligaon in Guwahati. Therefore, since the contract was signed in Guwahati and subsequent licence fees amount were paid in Guwahati, the cause of action arose in Guwahati itself. There is no question of this Court not having any jurisdiction. 11. He further referred to the annexure-3 of this writ petition, wherein, contract agreement dated 14.08.2019 was entered between the petitioner and the respondent authorities, wherein also it can be seen that the same agreement has been signed by the Deputy Chief Engineer/TR, NF Railway, Maligaon. The contract entered into between the parties itself is in Guwahati, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition as the cause of action or part of cause of action has definitely arisen in Guwahati. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the court, the court will have the jurisdiction in the matter. 12. He further submits that in the initial agreement dated 10.02.1992, there was no Arbitration Clause. He submits that though the agreement dated 14.08.2019 contains a provision for arbitration, the same relates to any dispute relating to the contract agreement and not for any issues relating to the licence fee. Therefore, the same cannot prevail in the instant case. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel submits that objection Page No.# 9/11 raised by the Railway authorities regarding the jurisdiction is not sustainable in view of the aforesaid provisions of law and the facts brought on record. 13. This Court has considered the issue relating to the maintainability of the instant case after perusal of the contract agreement as well as several communications made between the parties. It is seen that the contract was awarded and signed by the NF Railway, Head Quarter Maligaon in Guwahati. It is also seen that there is no separate licence agreement signed for the land in dispute i.e. 0.80 acres of land occupied by the petitioner for the purpose of its manufacturing unit. Therefore, there is no question of this Court not having the jurisdiction to entertain the instant case. Accordingly, the objection raised by the respondent authorities regarding the maintainability of the writ petition for lack of jurisdiction is rejected. 14. Now coming back to the facts of the case, it is seen that the instant case is squarely covered by the Judgement and order passed in the aforesaid case of Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.(supra) decided by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.3341/2018 on 20.01.2022, wherein, it has been clearly held that without having a licence agreement, the land value and the consequent license fee cannot be fixed at the market rate at the time of fixing such licence fee, the same can be done only as per the Circulars dated 10.02.2005 and 07.09.2005. However, it was held that if a fresh licence is entered between the parties, then the value of the land and consequent licence fee could be fixed in terms of the aforesaid Circulars as a fresh case. 15. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the demand notice dated 13.01.2023, whereby, the Railway authorities revised the land Page No.# 10/11 licence fee for the period 2006-2007 to 2022 -2023 in terms of the land value certificate issued by the DSR/Jalpaiguri is not as per the aforesaid Circulars and therefore, the same is interfered with. 16. Accordingly, in view of the observation and discussions made herein above, the matter is remanded to the Railway authorities to calculate the land value and consequential licence fee on the basis of the Clause 7 and 9 of the Master Circular dated 07.09.2005 till a licensing agreement not entered into by the petitioner with the respondent Railways authority. It is needless to say that the Railways authority cannot allow for utilisation of the land by the petitioner without getting into any licence agreement. If the petitioner desires to get into any licence agreement with the Railways authority for the aforesaid additional plot of land of 0.80 acres, the Railway authorities can get into a licence agreement in terms of the provision of the Circular dated 07.09.2005. And in the event, if the petitioner is not desirous to get into any such agreement, the Railway authorities shall be at liberty to take any action in terms of the aforesaid Circulars. 17. The Railway authorities shall pass a Speaking Order after receipt of a certified copy of the instant Judgment and order from the petitioner, within a period of 3(three) months after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to provide all relevant documents and submit his version of the case. While doing so, the Railways authority shall also take into account, if any amount has already been deducted from the petitioner’s running bill etc. 18. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Page No.# 11/11 JUDGE Comparing Assistant