Occupants without a valid, subsisting, and registered lease are unauthorized encroachers with no vested right to rehabilitation.

The appellant, an occupant of premises at Marwadi Hotel, Budhwari Bazar, Bilaspur, challenged the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPC No. 6490/2024.

The Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, effectively refusing to interfere with the Railway administration's actions regarding the subject premises.

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

Both parties conceded that the facts and legal issues were identical to a previously decided matter, *Aslam Hussain v. South East Central Railway & Others* (WA No. 131 of 2026), decided on 11.02.2026.

1. Whether an occupant of Railway land, whose lease has expired or does not exist, has a vested legal right to continue possession or claim rehabilitation.

2. Whether the Railway administration is legally obligated to provide alternative accommodation for dismantling existing shops on Railway land intended for operational expansion.

The Court applied the principle that the Union of India (Railways) is the absolute owner of its land, and any occupant without a valid, subsisting, and registered lease is considered an unauthorized occupant or encroacher subject to removal.

It relied on the "statutory obligation" of the Railways to remove encroachments for operational purposes, such as station expansion.

The Court further noted the absence of any policy under the Railway Commercial Department for the rehabilitation of shop owners whose structures are dismantled.

The Court observed that the appellant lacked a valid, subsisting lease, rendering their status as that of an "unauthorized occupant".

Applying the ratio from *Aslam Hussain*, the Court reasoned that the mere payment of license fees or taxes does not create a vested right once a lease expires.

The Court highlighted that the land was required for the "statutory obligation" of expanding the railway station, a project with a strict timeline.

Since the appellant could not demonstrate a policy-based right to rehabilitation or a registered lease, the Court found no "palpable infirmity" in the Single Judge’s refusal to grant relief.

Following the precedent set in *Aslam Hussain v. South East Central Railway*, the Court affirmed that the Railway administration is empowered to refuse renewal for operational purposes and is not obligated to provide rehabilitation.

The present appeal was disposed of in the same terms as WA No. 131 of 2026.