### Absence of Subsisting Lease Agreement Renders Occupants Encroachers Subject to Eviction Without Rehabilitation Rights

The appellant, owner of Mulk Raj Hotel located on Railway land near Bilaspur Railway Station, challenged an order dated 15.01.2026 passed by a Single Judge in WPC No. 5096 of 2024.

The appellant had been in possession of the premises and had paid lease rent/premium over time.

However, the formal lease had expired and was not renewed.

The Railway administration sought the land for the construction of a station extension.

The Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, denying relief for rehabilitation or continued possession.

1. Whether an occupant of Railway land, whose lease has expired and not been renewed, possesses a vested legal right to continue possession or claim rehabilitation against the Railway administration.

2. Whether the Railway administration has a statutory obligation to remove such occupants for operational and development projects.

The court applied the principle that the Union of India (Railways) holds absolute ownership of its land, and any person occupying such land without a valid, registered, and subsisting lease is an "unauthorized occupant" or "encroacher".

It relied on the "statutory obligation" of the Railways to remove encroachments for operational purposes as per existing Railway policies.

Furthermore, it noted the absence of any policy within the Railway's Commercial Department that mandates alternative accommodation or rehabilitation for displaced shop owners whose leases have terminated.

The court also applied the standard for intra-court appeals, holding that interference is only warranted if there are "palpable infirmities" or irregularities in the Single Judge’s order.

The Court observed that despite the payment of rent or taxes in the past, no valid lease currently exists in favor of the appellant.

Consequently, the appellant's status is that of an unauthorized occupant with no vested right to the property.

The Court noted that the Railway requires the land for a time-sensitive public project—the extension of the railway station.

It distinguished the present case from Supreme Court precedents involving mass residential evictions, noting that those cases involved "practical solutions" for long-term residents, whereas the present matter involves commercial shop owners with no rehabilitation policy in place.

Since the appellant did not participate in alternate e-auction proceedings (as seen in similar cases like M/s Haldiram) and the lease remained unrenewed, the Railway was within its rights to refuse renewal and proceed with eviction.

The Court held that the appellant had no vested right to remain in possession or claim rehabilitation.

The court concluded that no interference was warranted as the impugned order was in accordance with the law and followed the precedent set in the identical matter of Aslam Hussain v. South East Central Railway & Others (WA No. 131 of 2026).