Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme

“Government Retains Full Title… Licensee Liable To Quit At Will And Pleasure Of The Government”, In a significant judgment reinforcing the limited rights of temporary license holders over public land, the Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging termination of temporary land licenses granted by the Northeast Frontier Railway for commercial purposes near Tangla Railway Station.

Justice Kardak Ete held that where occupation flows from a contractual license containing an express resumption clause, the authority is competent to terminate and resume possession in terms of the agreement, and invocation of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is not mandatory. The Court further ruled that long-standing occupation of 50–60 years does not create an indefeasible right against the true owner.

The termination notices dated 18.01.2024 were upheld, though the Court granted 30 days’ time to vacate.

Background: 50–60 Years Of Commercial Occupation On Railway Land

The petitioners, numbering 34, claimed to have been residing and carrying on petty businesses in and around Tangla Railway Station for the last five to six decades. Their occupation of Railway land was based on temporary land license agreements executed with the Northeast Frontier Railway.

The licenses were renewed periodically, and annual license fees were paid. Some petitioners had applied for transfer of licenses in their names from their predecessors, which were stated to be pending.

On 18.01.2024, the Estate Officer, Rangia, N.F. Railway, issued termination notices directing the petitioners to vacate within 30 days, remove structures, and restore the land to its original condition. The land was required for implementation of the Government of India’s Amrit Bharat Station Scheme.

The petitioners challenged the notices under Article 226, contending that eviction without invoking the Public Premises Act violated principles of natural justice and that they were entitled to rehabilitation.

Petitioners’ Case: Public Premises Act Must Be Invoked, Rehabilitation Required

The petitioners argued that the authorities failed to follow the procedure under Section 3A and other provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. According to them, they could not be evicted without being declared unauthorized occupants through due process.

Reliance was placed on pending proceedings before the Supreme Court in Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v. Union of India, where the Apex Court observed that “there cannot be uprooting of people overnight” and that workable rehabilitation arrangements may be necessary.

The petitioners also sought a direction for framing a rehabilitation scheme by providing alternative accommodation in and around Tangla Railway Station.

Railway’s Stand: Purely Temporary Commercial License With Express Resumption Clause

The respondents contended that the petitioners were not unauthorized occupants but licensees under temporary agreements expressly reserving the Government’s right to resume possession at any time.

Clause 20 of the agreement provided:

“The Government shall be entitled at any time to give notice to the licensee of its intention to resume possession of the land… the licensee shall vacate the land, remove all materials and building… within 30 days… and the Government shall not be responsible for any inconvenience, loss or damage…”

The Railway authorities emphasized that the land was urgently required for public purpose under the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme and that the license agreements were never for dwelling purposes, but only for temporary commercial occupation.

Licensee Has Only Permissive Possession

Justice Kardak Ete examined the relevant clauses of the license agreement and made critical observations regarding the nature of the petitioners’ rights.

The agreement clearly stipulated:

“It is distinctly understood by the licensee that the Government will retain the full legal title, ownership, right of access, inspection and control… and the licensee will only have physical occupation… subject to the overriding liability of quitting… at the will and pleasure of the Government.”

The Court held that the petitioners had voluntarily entered into the agreements with clear stipulations regarding resumption. The occupation was temporary, renewable annually, and limited strictly to commercial purposes.

The Court observed that long duration of occupation does not convert permissive possession into a legal right:

“Long standing occupation of the land in question for 50–60 years cannot override the express stipulations of the license agreement nor create any right against the true owner.”

Public Premises Act Not Mandatory In Contractual Resumption

On the argument that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act were mandatory, the Court rejected the contention.

The petitioners, having accepted the license agreements with an express resumption clause, could not insist on being first declared “unauthorized occupants” before eviction.

The Court held that where possession flows from a contractual arrangement containing an express right of resumption, the authority is competent to act strictly in terms of that contract. The Public Premises Act cannot be “press into service” when termination is effected under the agreed contractual mechanism.

Supreme Court Proceedings Distinguished

Addressing reliance on pending Supreme Court matters, the Court distinguished the facts.

Those cases involved alleged mass uprooting of approximately 50,000 persons, disputes regarding title, and claims of leasehold or auction rights. In contrast, the present case involved a limited number of licensees occupying land under specific temporary agreements acknowledging Railway’s title and resumption rights.

The Court held that the present case “cannot be equated” with the matters pending before the Apex Court.

No Enforceable Right To Rehabilitation

The Court also rejected the plea for rehabilitation.

Justice Ete held that the petitioners were not being illegally dispossessed but were required to vacate strictly in terms of the license conditions. Since the land indisputably belonged to the Railway and was required for public purpose, no enforceable right to rehabilitation arose in a contractual license case.

“For implementation of the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, the land temporarily occupied… is required for the interest of public at large. Thus, the question of providing any rehabilitation… does not arise.”

Petition Dismissed, 30 Days’ Time Granted

Holding that no relief could be granted, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the termination notices dated 18.01.2024.

However, considering the ultimate prayer made by counsel for the petitioners, the Court directed the respondent authorities to provide 30 days’ time for the petitioners to vacate the land and remove their materials and structures.

Temporary License Does Not Ripen Into Right

The judgment is a clear reaffirmation that a temporary commercial license does not create proprietary or possessory rights against the true owner. Even decades of occupation cannot override express contractual terms reserving the Government’s right to resume possession.

The Gauhati High Court has thus clarified that when public land is required for implementation of a public scheme, and termination is effected strictly in accordance with contractual stipulations, writ courts will not interfere.

Date of Decision: 05.02.2026