WPA/24984/2026 of JAYADUL ISLAM KHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 25 September 2026

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the notices dated 31.07.2026 as issued by the respondent No. 6/authority whereby and whereunder one Wazid Ali Khan, who happened to be the deceased father of the present writ petitioner was asked to vacate temporary allotment of Railway Comml. Plot/shop No. 9B(S), measuring of 167.200 sq.m. at PKU Rly station circulating area over S.E. Railway and temporary allotment of Railway Comml, plot/shop No. Nil(S) measuring of 255.800 sq.m. at PKU Rly station circulating area over S.E. Railway.

2. At the time of hearing Mr. Saha Roy, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this Court that the said Wazid Ali Khan, since deceased and the father of the writ petitioner was a licensee in respect of the aforementioned two allotted portion under the railway authority and during his lifetime, the original licensee regularly made payment of the licence fee in respect of the aforementioned two allotted portion.

3. It is argued by Mr. Saha Roy that after the death of the father of the writ petitioner, the railway authority was approached by the writ petitioner by submitting a representation dated 10.06.2026 with a request to allot the said two portions in favour of the writ petitioner since the writ petitioner was in settled possession of the said two allotted portion of the railway premises after death of his father, the original licensee. It is argued by Mr. Saha Roy that despite submission of such representation, the railway authority has not taken steps for granting licence of the aforementioned two portions in favour of the writ petitioner and on the contrary issued the impugned two notices of termination ignoring the settled possession of the writ petitioner over the said two portions of the railway authority.

4. It is thus submitted by Mr. Saha Roy that this is a fit case for granting appropriate relief/reliefs as prayed for in the instant writ petition.

5. Ms. Bothra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the railway authority vehemently opposes the prayer. She submits that by issuing the impugned two notices, the respondent No. 6/authority terminated the allotment in accordance with law and in the said notices it has been categorically mentioned that in the event the original allottee and/or any other person does not vacate the properties in question, the said authority will take recourse to law.

6. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that in order to substantiate his independent right title and interest, if there be any, the writ petitioner could not furnish any material before this Court. Whatever documents have been relied upon by the writ petitioner is in the name of his deceased father. It further appears to this Court that from the said two impugned notices, the respondent No. 6/authority expressed his intention that in the event requisition of the said two notices are not complied with, he will take recourse to law.

7. Such being the position, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned notices in view of the fact that in the event respondent No. 6/authority initiate a proceeding under Public Premises (Eviction on Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the appropriate authority, the present writ petitioner would get adequate opportunity to ventilate his independent right title and interest over the said two allotted portion.

8. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

9. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

10. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)