A CORRESPONDENT
TANGLA: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by 34 residents of Tangla town challenging the termination of their temporary land occupation licences by the Northeast Frontier Railway, clearing the way for eviction in connection with the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme.
The petitioners had assailed a notice dated January 18, 2024, issued by the Estate Officer, Rangia, directing them to vacate the railway land within 30 days and remove all structures. They also sought a direction for framing a rehabilitation scheme in the event of their dispossession. On February 5, 2026, while disposing of WP(C) No. 6092/2024, Justice Kardak Ete said that the petitioners occupied the land under temporary licence agreements executed for commercial purposes and not for residential use. The court observed that the agreements clearly empowered the Railways to resume possession at any time by issuing notice, requiring licensees to vacate within 30 days without any claim for compensation.
The petitioners contended that they and their predecessors had been in possession of the land for 50–60 years and were running petty businesses near Tangla Railway Station. They argued that due process under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, was not followed and that they were entitled to a show-cause notice before eviction. Reliance was also placed on pending proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning large-scale railway evictions.
Rejecting the submissions, the high court held that the Public Premises Act was not applicable because the petitioners were treated as licensees, not unauthorized occupants. Instead, their licences were terminated strictly in terms of Clause 20 of the agreements, which they had accepted. The court noted that the land, acquired in 1913, undisputedly belongs to the Railways and that the licences were purely temporary and renewable annually. On the plea for rehabilitation, the court held that since the petitioners were being asked to vacate in accordance with contractual terms and not through any illegal dispossession, the question of providing alternative accommodation did not arise. The court, however, considering the request made by the petitioners’ counsel, directed the railway authorities to allow 30 days for the occupants to vacate the land and remove their materials and structures.
Also Read: Slum Groups Oppose Railway Land Eviction, Demand Rehabilitation