LAWS(CHH)-2003-2-13

KAMAL NARAYAN KHANDELWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 06, 2003
Kamal Narayan Khandelwal Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by Kamal Narayan Khandelwal and Dilip Kumar Khandelwal under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proceedings for eviction were drawn against the petitioners and eviction order was passed as far back as on 8-10-1987 by the Competent Authority. An appeal was preferred before the District Judge under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The appeal was dismissed on 8-10-1996. Thereafter, W.P. No. 1471/1997 was filed which was held to be not maintainable. Pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court, an application for conversion of writ petition into Civil Revision was filed which was allowed and this revision has been registered as C.R. No. 2407/2000 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and after formation of State of Chhattisgarh, this has been received on transfer from High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) It is submitted that there are various persons against whose encroachments in front of main station and the circulating area, various orders evicting these persons were passed. They were challenged by Civil Revision Nos. 739/97, 553/2000, 555/2000, 557/2000, 558/2000 and 559/2000 and revisions were decided by common order dated 19-6-2000. It is pointed out that in the other case, the petitioners were given licence and possession of the Railway plot whereas in the present case petitioner was not given any licence. The plot in question was originally granted to Hem Narayan Singh s/o Late Lab Singh in the year 1980 as temporary licence. The said Hem Narayan left the plot and alleged to have given its possession by giving power of attorney which is contrary to various conditions laid in the "Licence for temporary occupation of Railway Land" and is contrary to law as well as public policy.

(3.) Counsel for the Railways referred to and it is relevant here to mention the condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 which are quoted hereinbelow:--