VIRENDER SINGH,C.J. - (1.) All these Letters Patent Appeals arising out of three writ petitions being W.P (C) Nos. 1515, 1516 & 1527 of 2016 were taken up by the Writ Court together as the issue involved in the writ petitions relates to eviction of the appellantwrit petitioners (hereinafter called as writ petitioners) from the land falling within Plot No.183 under Khata No.3, Mouza Jugsalai as recorded in the Revisional Survey Records of Rights published in the year 1965.
(2.) Admittedly, writ petitioners are not claiming title/rightful ownership over the disputed land and the stand taken by them, as one finds from the pleadings is that they being in possession over the disputed property since long, some of them also erected houses or other structures including shops etc. cannot be evicted by a mere notice. South Eastern Railways, Tatanagar, claiming itself to be the owner of the said property when issued notices on 10th/11th March, 2016 to the writ petitioners for vacating the land giving them a week's time, the writ petitioners moved the Writ Court by filing the aforesaid three writ petitions, which came up before the Writ Court initially on 19th March, 2016, on which date the following order was passed; "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in each of the individual writ petitions, petitioners have been served with a notice dated 10.03.2016 and 11.03.2016 issued by the Senior Section Engineer, Land, South East Railway, Tatanagar to vacate the Railway land alleged to be occupied unauthorizedly by 17.03.2016. 2. Notice is completely vague and does not contain any description of any plot, area, etc, therefore, it suffers from vagueness. Individual petitioners have made their assertion in the respective writ petitions about continuance over pieces of land since long. It is submitted that in any case, no proper proceeding has been initiated, if at all the allegation is of unauthorized occupation of the Railway land. Therefore, petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Railways seeks short time to obtain instructions in the matters. 4. Accordingly, list the cases on 29.03.2016. 5. Till then, no coercive steps be taken pursuant to the impugned notices against individual petitioners, if not already taken".
(3.) The matter was taken up on 12th April, 2016, when the pleadings by both the sides were complete. What appears from the records is that on the proposal of both the sides, a Pleader Commissioner (Advocate of this Court) was appointed to carry out the inspection of the premises in question. A detailed order was passed in this regard by learned Writ Court. We feel it apt to reproduce the same. It reads thus; "In these individual matters, counter affidavit have already been filed by the respondent Railways taking a plea that petitioners are illegally and unauthorizedly occupying the Railway land which is coming in the way of construction of Rail Overbridge at Jugsalai at Tatanagar. 2. Petitioner in WPC No. 1515/2016 claims to be holding a plot of land over plot no. 177/232 under Khata No. 2 Ward No. 5 having an area of 0.512 decimal of Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur. He has constructed a shop and house and is doing business from the said premises. 3. Petitioners in WPC No. 1516/2016 claim to be in possession over plot no. 114 under Khata no. 3, Thana No. 1161 having an area of 12 Katta since 1982 and doing business of scrap materials in the name of M/s King Metals. 4. Petitioner in WPC No. 1527/2016 claims to be in possession of an area of 30'x60' under Khata No. 2 Khesra No. 170 Ward No. 5 in Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee and running motor garage since 1980. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Railways categorically submits by relying upon Railways Map of the area that the petitioners are encroaching within the demarcated area falling within the boundary wall of Railways property near LIC gate. It is submitted that the Road Overbridge (ROB) is part of modernization development programme of Railways at Tatanagar and its adjoining area which needs removal of encroachment from the Railways land. It is submitted that 77 out of 80 such encroachments have already been removed except three petitioners who have raised an objection by approaching this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Railways and petitioners both make a proposal that the area in question clearly defined with all necessary description be inspected by the Court appointed Pleader Commissioner through Survey knowing Amin in the presence of both the parties to find out, whether there is an encroachment over Railways land. Parties would abide by the decision of the Court on the basis of the Pleader Commissioner's report and if it is found that there is any encroachment over the Railways land, the same would be removed without any delay by the individual petitioners. 7. Having regard to the submissions made and exigency shown by the Railways in the matter of construction of Road Overbridge which would benefit a large number of people, this Court is inclined to accede to the proposal of the parties. Accordingly, Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel practicing in this Court, is appointed as Pleader Commissioner to carry out inspection of the area in question in the presence of both the parties with the help of Survey knowing Amin. Respondent Railway Authorities would provide the entire description of the land said to be under encroachment by the petitioners, to the Pleader Commissioner within one week through the learned counsel for the Railways Mr. Mahesh Tiwari. Thereafter, Circle Officer of the concerned Jugsalai Block / competent authority having revenue jurisdiction over the area, would provide services of Survey knowing Amin to the learned Pleader Commissioner for carrying out inspection on the date and time fixed by the learned Pleader Commissioner after necessary description of the land is provided by Railways within a period of one week, as aforesaid. Learned Pleader Commissioner would inform the learned counsel for both the parties to ensure presence of the parties on the date so fixed for carrying out such inspection. Fee of the leaned Pleader Commissioner would be Rs. 20,000/ to be equally borne by Railways and the petitioners. Each of three petitioners would share the 50% of the amount of fee equally amongst themselves. Pleader Commissioner's fee will be deposited on the next date fixed before this Court. Let such a report be submitted by the learned Pleader Commissioner on the next date i.e. 03.05.2016. The Railway authorities would coordinate with the Circle Officer of the Revenue area / competent authority for providing the service of Survey knowing Amin for inspection and measurement of the area by the Pleader Commissioner. 8. Let a copy of the order be handed over to the learned Pleader Commissioner Mr. Rohit Roy and learned counsel for both the petitioners and Railways by tomorrow. All the authority concerned and the petitioners would cooperate with the Pleader Commissioner in carrying out the inspection. 9. Interim order dated 19.03.2016 shall continue till the next date". ;