The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that individuals cannot claim any legal right over railway land without a valid and renewed lease agreement. Delivering its verdict in a significant land dispute, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed a writ appeal filed by Deepchand Kachhwaha.
The case arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the South East Central Railway against Kachhwaha, who had been operating a business at the Ananta Hotel premises near Bilaspur Railway Station. He had challenged the eviction action taken by railway authorities. Earlier, on January 15, 2026, a single bench had disposed of his petition, following which the present writ appeal was filed.
During the hearing, counsel for the appellant argued his case, while the Deputy Solicitor General appeared on behalf of the Railways. Both sides informed the court that a similar dispute had already been adjudicated in an earlier case, Aslam Hussain vs South East Central Railway.
Court’s major Observations
The High Court made several important observations while rejecting the appeal:
The appellant did not possess a valid, registered, or subsisting lease agreement.
Payment of lease rent or taxes alone does not confer legal ownership or occupancy rights.
Once a lease expires and is not renewed, the occupant is considered an unauthorized encroacher.
Railway land belongs to the Central Government, and railway authorities have a statutory obligation to remove illegal encroachments.
There is no existing policy within the Railway’s commercial department to provide rehabilitation or alternative shops to such occupants.
The Railways have the authority to refuse lease renewal if the land is required for station expansion or operational purposes.
Long-term occupation does not automatically create ownership or permanent rights.
Reliance on Earlier Judgment
The bench observed that the present case was substantially similar to W.A. No. 131 of 2026, decided earlier on February 11, 2026. In that judgment, the court had clearly held that individuals occupying railway land without a valid lease are not entitled to rehabilitation or alternative accommodation.
Finding no legal error or infirmity in the single bench’s earlier order, the division bench declined to interfere. The writ appeal was dismissed and ordered to be disposed of in line with the earlier ruling.
The judgment reinforces the legal position that expired or unrenewed leases do not grant continued rights over government-owned railway property.
