Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Of Chandanpur Railway Station Hawkers From Railway Land
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the eviction of hawkers operating from railway land at Chandanpur Railway Station, holding that the Railway authorities are empowered under Section 147(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 to remove unauthorised occupants without first initiating proceedings under the West Bengal Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De dismissed an appeal filed by Alok Chakraborty and others, representing hawkers operating through the Chandanpur Bazar Railway Premises Shoppers Cooperative Society Limited.
The Court, however, granted the hawkers 90 days from September 3, 2026 to vacate the railway premises, taking into consideration that they had been vending from the property for a considerable period.
The appellants had earlier approached the High Court on two occasions against eviction notices issued by the Railway authorities.
In the first round, the eviction notice was stayed and the Railways were directed to consider the appellants' representation. In the subsequent proceedings, the Court directed the authorities to provide another opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order.
Pursuant to those directions, the Railway authorities passed a speaking order on October 17, 2023, holding that the appellants had failed to produce authentic documents establishing their right to conduct business on railway land at Chandanpur Railway Station.
The authorities also recorded that the Railways had never granted permission for registration of the Chandanpur Bazar Railway Premises Shoppers Cooperative Society Limited.
The appellants subsequently challenged the order, but no stay was granted.
Thereafter, on August 1, 2025, the Railway authorities issued an eviction-cum-show-cause notice directing the occupants to remove their structures and belongings from the railway land. The notice was challenged before the Single Bench, which dismissed the writ petition.
Before the Division Bench, the appellants argued that the Railway authorities were required to follow Sections 4 and 5 of the 1971 Act before evicting them.
They also contended that they could not be treated as rank trespassers, relying upon a 2006 communication from the Railway authorities concerning their proposal to form a cooperative society for conducting business on railway land.
The Railways, on the other hand, relied upon Section 147 of the Railways Act and earlier judgments holding that the provision enables the authorities to remove unauthorised occupants from railway property without resorting to the Public Premises Act.
The Bench accepted the Railway authorities' contention.
Referring to Section 147(2), the Court noted that the provision permits any person covered by Section 147(1) to be removed from railway property by a railway servant or another person called to the servant's aid.
The Court observed: "Section 147(2) does not contain any statutory prerequisite even to issue a notice before doing so.”
The Bench further held that Section 147 applies to the present case since the subject property admittedly belonged to the Railways. It noted that the definition of “railway” under Section 2(31) of the 1989 Act includes lands appurtenant to a railway.
The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the Railway's 2006 communication showed that permission had been granted in principle for the cooperative society to operate from the railway property.
The Bench held that the communication merely required the appellants to submit documents relating to the formation of the cooperative society for consideration of their request.
“There was no assurance contained in the letter that even if such a registration was done or documents in that regard produced, a right would be conferred automatically on the appellants to possess the railway property,” the Court held.
The Bench also relied on a January 9, 2007 communication from the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hooghly, which indicated that a no-objection certificate from the Railways was required for the society to use the railway land.
The Court found that there was no material showing that such permission or no-objection certificate had ever been issued by the Railways.
It further held: “Mere formation of a cooperative society does not automatically confer a right on such society to possess railway property in any manner whatsoever.”
The appellants had also argued that the August 1, 2025 notice violated the principles of natural justice.
The Bench rejected this contention, holding that the appellants had already been given an opportunity of hearing which culminated in the reasoned order dated October 17, 2023.
The Court observed that the principle of audi alteram partem has to be considered in light of the test of prejudice.
Since the Railway authorities had already considered the appellants' claims and concluded that they had no right to possess the property, the Court held that another opportunity of hearing was not necessary.
“It does not lie in the mouth of the appellants that infinite number of opportunities of hearing have to be given to them,” the Bench remarked.
The Court accordingly held that the Railways were entitled to remove the hawkers under Section 147(2) of the Railways Act without initiating proceedings under the 1971 Act.
It also held that the use of the expression “eviction cum show cause notice” in the August 1, 2025 notice did not render the notice illegal. According to the Court, the words “show cause notice” were merely surplusage and the notice essentially informed the occupants that they would be removed from the railway property under Section 147(2).
Case: Alok Chakraborty and others Vs. Union of India and others
Case No: MAT 1294 of 2025