Sikkim High Court Sets Aside Interim Compensation For Alleged Railway Work Damage; Notes No Such Relief Was Sought

The Sikkim High Court has set aside an interim relief providing compensation to a landholder whose house was allegedly damaged due to the railway works, observing that the compensation can be granted by way of interim relief in exceptional cases where there is an immediate threat to the life of a citizen and no other means are available to safeguard their life and liberty.

The division bench of Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that in the present case, no such exceptional circumstances were pleaded or demonstrated.

The division bench observed;

"We have noted that at the outset, no interim application had been filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge. There may arise situations where compensation can be awarded by way of interim relief, particularly where there exists an immediate threat to the life of a citizen and no other means are available to safeguard their life and liberty. In such exceptional circumstances, the Writ Court is empowered to pass appropriate interim orders, having due regard to the facts and exigencies of the case. None of the circumstances have been narrated before the learned Single Judge to pass such an interim orders by filing an application(s) for interim relief".

The appeals arise from two writ petitions filed by a private landholder alleging that his house suffered damage due to the works undertaken by IRCON on behalf of Indian Railways. The single judge issued an interim order dated December 12, 2025, directing payment of compensation.

Aggrieved, IRCON approached the division bench questioning the maintainability of the appeals and the legality of the interim compensation orders.

Regarding the issue of maintainability, the bench held that an appeal would lie under Rule 148 of the Sikkim High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011. The bench noted that the impugned order directing payment of compensation could not have been passed without impinging on the rights and obligations of the parties. The bench further observed,

"Such an order, by its very nature, affects the substantial rights of the parties and, in such circumstances, the appeal would lie before this Court. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order is appealable".

Regarding the sustainability of the order, the court noted that no interim application was filed by the petitioner before the Single Judge. The bench clarified that in exceptional circumstances, the courts may award interim compensation, especially when there exists an immediate threat to the life of a citizen or other means to safeguard their life and liberty. However, no such circumstances were pleaded or demonstrated by the petitioner. The bench noted that one of the prayers in the writ petition was seeking direction to pay house rent to the petitioner. The bench noted that if the petitioner intended to move out or relocate, then he could have highlighted and calculated the amount required when there was no other means for the writ petitioner to pay the rent.

The bench further emphasized, "The Court may in an extreme situation issue an interim order to pay some compensation having due regard to the rights and obligations of the parties".

The bench further reinforced that such orders can be passed in cases where there existed an immediate threat to the life of a citizen who has approached the Court and who did not have any support for his means, but for relief to be granted by an interim order.

Therefore, in the absence of any interim relief sought, the bench held that the interim order was not sustainable. Accordingly, the bench granted liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Single Judge by filing an appropriate application seeking interim relief.

The bench directed, "The matter is listed before the learned Single Judge on 31st of March, 2026. So, it is left to the writ petitioner to press the matter for final hearing before the learned Single Judge or to file fresh application for an interim relief. We are sure that by considering the urgency involved, the learned Single Judge will consider the matter at the earliest".

Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order directing compensation was set aside.

Case Title: IRCON International v State of Sikkim [W.A. No. 02 of 2026]

For Appellant: Advocates Deblina Chattaraj and Prem Simon Chettri

For State: Government Advocate S.K. Chettri with Assistant Government Advocate Sujan Sunwar

For Respondent no 3 (Private landholders): Advocate D.K. Siwakoti

For Indian Railways: Deputy Solicitor General Sangita Pradhan with Advocates Natasha Pradhan, Sittal Balmiki and Amit Kumar Sharma

Click here to read/download the Order