Madras HC upholds removal of encroachment on Railway land in Vellore district
Chennai: The Madras high court has dismissed the petitions, which sought a direction to the Southern Railway to reconstruct the superstructure demolished by it in the petitioners property in Vellore district by allegedly adopting unlawful method and without following due process of law and consequently direct the Southern Railway to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation for the mental agony, sufferings and pain.
The First Bench comprising Chief Justice V.K.Tahilramani and Justice M.Duraiswamy dismissed the petitions filed by Zamruth and Anothinyammal.
The bench said it was the case of the petitioners that the Southern Railway had unlawfully demolished the superstructure without issuing any notice to them with regard to the alleged encroachment.
The Southern Railway filed its counter stating that as per the Indian Railway Works Manual, for making any construction within 30 meters from the railway boundary, No Objection Certificate has to be obtained from the Competent Authority. This stipulation was made in order to ensure no obstruction was caused to the Railway Tracks and any construction made within 30 meters should not affect the cables of signal system made by the Railways, the bench added.
The bench said according to Southern Railway, the petitioners have put up temporary construction in an unauthorised manner within the Railway boundary. Further sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioners to remove their encroachments before taking action to evict them.
Further, on November 10, 2018, the petitioners gave a representation seeking 15 days time to vacate the Railway land encroached by them. In spite of time given, they did not vacate the Railway land and hence, the temporary constructions put up by the petitioners were removed in their presence. P.T.Ramkumar, counsel appearing for Southern Railway has also produced the representation given by the petitioners and others requesting 15 days to vacate the encroached land.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have affixed their signature for a different purpose. However, the petitioners have not established the said contention in any manner whatsoever. Further, the factum of the representation has not been disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions by the petitioners. “The petitioners are not entitled to encroach the Railway land, which would affect the free flow of trains”, the bench added.
