Absence of valid lease renders occupants unauthorized; Railways has no statutory obligation to rehabilitate commercial encroachers.

The appellant, Dula Ram Wadhwani, operated a business (Sona Sweets) on railway land in Bilaspur.

Following a notice for eviction, he filed a writ petition (WPC No. 6488/2024) challenging the removal, which was disposed of by a Single Judge on January 15, 2026.

The appellant preferred this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.

The dispute arose because the Railways required the land for the expansion of the Bilaspur railway station.

Both parties conceded that the facts and legal questions were identical to a previously decided matter, Aslam Hussain v. South East Central Railway & Others (WA No. 131 of 2026).

1. Whether an occupant of railway land holds any vested or lawful right to remain in possession after the expiry or absence of a valid, registered lease agreement.

2. Whether the Railways is legally obligated to provide alternative accommodation or rehabilitation to shop owners displaced for operational projects in the absence of a specific commercial department policy.

The Court applied the principle of absolute ownership of Central Government land by the Railways, noting that occupants without a subsisting, registered lease are "unauthorized occupants" or "encroachers" subject to removal.

It relied on the "statutory obligation" of the Railways to remove encroachments for operational purposes under the Railway Administration's powers.

The court further observed that long-term possession does not confer ownership rights and that rehabilitation is only a requirement if a specific policy exists, which is not the case for the Railways' commercial department.

The Court noted that there was no existing lease in favor of the appellant; although lease rent or taxes might have been accepted in the past, this did not grant a vested right to continue possession once the lease expired or was not renewed.

The Court analyzed the Railways' affidavit, which confirmed that no rehabilitation policy exists for shop owners dismantled for station expansion.

Applying the precedent from Aslam Hussain, the Court reasoned that the public necessity for station extension outweighed the interests of unauthorized occupants.

It held that unless "palpable infirmities" were shown in the Single Judge’s order, interference in a writ appeal was unwarranted; since the appellant was in identical circumstances to the dismissed Aslam Hussain case, the same logic applied.

Following the judgment in Aslam Hussain v. SECR (WA No. 131 of 2026), the Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge's order.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed in terms of the order dated February 11, 2026, confirming the Railways' right to seek eviction for operational purposes.