Union of India Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagarik Samity &
Ors  Insc 242 (17
Hegde & B.P.Singh.
out of SLP Nos.17203-17205 of 1999) SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
SLP No.9827/2002) Leave granted. SLPNo.9827/2002 is de-linked from C.A.Nos...of
2003 @ SLPNos. 17203-205/99.
of India through Eastern Railway, Calcutta is challenging an order made by
Calcutta High Court dated 18.6.1999 in Writ Petition Nos. 12902/97 and 1322/98
pending in the file of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. A Division
Bench of the said High Court while considering the above noted writ petitions
filed before it for seeking eviction of illegal squatters in the railway
property, as also areas besides Rabindra Sarobar, directed the State of West
Bengal and Railway administration as an interim measure, to provide sanitary
facilities to the said squatters. Accordingly following directions were
Cost for the project shall be borne in equal proportion by the State of West Bengal and the Union of India, through
The State Government authorities, authorities of the railway administration as
also the Calcutta Municipal Corporation shall see to it that no further
infiltration takes place.
the aforementioned project is completed by the State Government Calcutta
Municipal Corporation would see the proper sanitation is maintained.
this appeal, the appellants contend that in view of the fact that there are
lawful orders to evict the said squatters from the railway property, the High
Court ought to have directed the eviction of the squatters rather than
providing them with further benefits which would only make them disobey the
order of eviction. The appellants urge that instead of the impugned directions,
the High Court ought to have directed the State Government to provide the
Railways necessary police help to evict the illegal squatters whose occupation
on the railway land is causing serious problems to the railways in maintaining
its services as also causing danger to the passengers and goods carried by the
railways, apart from the problem of pollution as contended in the writ
have heard learned counsel for the parties and we notice that the impugned
order itself states that the same shall not come in the way of the
implementation of the eviction order already passed. If that be so, we find no
reason why the railways or for that matter State of West Bengal should be directed to provide
sanitary facilities even as an interim measure. We see from the records that
subsequent to the impugned order which is of 18.6.1999, on 14.12.2001 the High
Court has held that the competent authorities having passed eviction order
against these squatters the State Government with the railway administration
and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation should see that all these orders are
complied within one month of the passing of the said order. It seems no steps
are yet taken to comply with the order of eviction. We also notice on 18.1.2002
an application was filed on behalf of Ballygunj-Tollygung Rail Colony Sangram
Committee seeking an extension of time by six months to persons residing in the
said railway property (squatters) to vacate the same. We also notice even
though the said application contained a prayer for rehabilitation of the said
squatters, the same was given up and the prayer was confined only to the
extension of time to vacate the railway property.
High Court taking note of certain difficulties that was there at that point of
time for these squatters to vacate immediately, extended the time to vacate the
area in question by 30th of April, 2002, subject to the condition that the
concerned persons filed an undertaking to the Court committing themselves to
vacate the area in question by 30th April, 2002. Such undertaking was to be
filed within 10 days of the date of the said order of the High Court. The court
also directed in default of filing of undertaking, the order of extension will
stand cancelled. The said order of the High Court is made mandatory and
peremptory. But we are told that till this day there has been no compliance of
that order. It is possible because of the pendency of these petitions further
steps might not have been taken by the High Court.
that as it may, in view of the subsequent orders of the High Court dated
14.12.2001 and 18.1.2002 wherein there are clear cut directions for evicting
the illegal squatters in the railway property in question, we think the
impugned order has become infructuous.
however, make it clear that the High Court should now take such steps as is
necessary to see that the orders of eviction passed by the competent
authorities and also the directions given by it as per orders dated 14.12.2001
and 18.1.2003 are given effect to at the earliest.
the said observations, these appeals stand disposed of.