Udalguri: A division bench of the Gauhati High Court, headed by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, on March 9 dismissed an appeal filed by nine shopkeepers challenging the termination of their land licences at Tangla Railway Station (WA/52/26).
The appellants, including Prabin Boro and others, had been occupying railway land near the station for nearly five decades under temporary land licence agreements issued by the Northeast Frontier Railway.
According to court records, the licences allowed them to use the land for commercial and residential purposes. The original licence holders continued their businesses and later sought the transfer of rights over the land, leading to disputes over their legal status.
In 2024, the railway authorities decided to upgrade and modernise Tangla Railway Station under the Government of India’s Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, which aims to improve passenger amenities.
As part of the project, the railways invoked a clause in the licence agreement and issued notices terminating the licences and directing the landholders to vacate the land.
The traders initially approached civil courts and obtained temporary injunctions, which were later vacated. They subsequently filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash the eviction notices and requesting protection from eviction without due process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
They also sought rehabilitation or alternative accommodation, stating that eviction would affect their livelihood as they had been running their establishments for several decades.
However, the High Court observed that the appellants were holders of temporary licences for commercial use and that their occupation of the railway land was governed strictly by the terms of the licence agreement.
The court held that the railways had the authority to terminate the licences after issuing the required notice, particularly in view of the decision to modernise the station under the government initiative.
The bench further noted that rehabilitation could be considered by the railway authorities, but it could not be directed by the court as there was no evidence that the appellants were destitute, landless, or otherwise entitled to such relief.
At the same time, the court observed that if kiosks or commercial spaces are created at the modernised station, the former licence holders may apply for fresh licences, and their applications could be considered in accordance with railway policy.