Uttarakhand HC Quashes Railways’ Eviction Notice Issued Without Statutory Authority
A general notice by Northern Railways asking occupants at Jharipani, Mussoorie to vacate within 30 days was quashed for lacking any statutory basis and violating due process.
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a general eviction notice issued by the Senior Section Engineer (Works), Northern Railways, Dehradun, directing occupants of land at Jharipani, Mussoorie, District Dehradun to vacate within 30 days or face forcible removal. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, sitting singly, held that the notice was not referable to any statute and that even a person in unlawful possession cannot be removed from property without following due process of law. The court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, who claimed ownership of the land through sale deeds and gift deeds, while making clear that the Railways remained free to pursue lawful remedies against persons found to be in unauthorised occupation.
The Eviction Notice and the Petitioners’ Challenge
On 5 October 2023, the Senior Section Engineer (Works), Northern Railways, Dehradun issued a general notice addressed to the public at large. The notice called upon persons in possession of land belonging to the Railways to vacate within 30 days, warning that failure to do so would result in eviction by force and liability to pay the expenses of removal.
The notice was affixed on dwelling houses at Jharipani, Mussoorie. It did not name any specific individual as being in unauthorised possession. It also did not cite any statutory provision under which it was issued.
The petitioners, who claimed to be owners of immovable property at the same location, filed WPMS No. 2992 of 2023 before the Uttarakhand High Court. They sought a writ of certiorari quashing the notice. In support of their ownership claim, they placed sale deeds and gift deeds on record.
The Railways, represented by counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, contested the petition. Their position was that the Railways is the true owner of the land and that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation, giving the Railways the right to ask them to vacate.
The Legal Issue: Can an Administrative Notice Compel Vacation Under Threat of Force?
The central question before the court was whether a notice issued in an administrative capacity—without reference to any statute—could lawfully direct persons to vacate land under threat of forcible eviction.
When pressed on this point, counsel for the Railways could not give a satisfactory answer as to whether the notice was issued under any statute or was purely an administrative communication by the Senior Section Engineer. That concession proved significant to the court’s reasoning.
The court framed the issue in terms of both constitutional and human rights. Forcible dispossession of a person from immovable property without legal sanction, it held, violates both. The law, as the court stated, mandates that even a trespasser or a tenant in settled possession cannot be evicted forcibly; the landowner must obtain orders from a competent court and follow established legal procedure.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Tiwari relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, reported as (2022) 12 SCC 128, which reiterated that settled possession of even a person in unlawful possession cannot be disturbed forcibly by the true owner taking the law into his own hands.
The Supreme Court in that case had approved findings of the Delhi High Court in Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v. Hotel Imperial, which in turn had been affirmed in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370. The principle extracted from those decisions is that ejectment from settled possession can only be had by recourse to a court of law. The “due process of law” requirement is satisfied only when a court of competent jurisdiction adjudicates upon the rights of the parties.
Applying this to the facts, the court found that the impugned notice of 5 October 2023 was not referable to any statute. It was an administrative notice issued by the Senior Section Engineer. It threatened forcible removal and recovery of expenses—consequences that can only follow a court order, not an administrative direction. The notice therefore could not be sustained in the eyes of law.
The court did not go into the merits of the ownership dispute between the petitioners and the Railways. It did not decide whether the petitioners’ sale deeds and gift deeds established valid title, or whether the Railways’ claim to the land was correct. The quashing was confined to the procedural illegality of the notice itself: it lacked statutory authority and threatened consequences that required prior judicial sanction.
The Connected Writ Petition
A second writ petition, WPMS No. 1800 of 2026, was filed by a petitioner who had also received the eviction notice dated 5 October 2023 from the Railway Authorities. That petitioner had additionally sought a direction to the District Magistrate and Revenue Authorities to erect boundary pillars within a reasonable time.
When WPMS No. 2992 of 2023 was allowed on 16 June 2026, counsel for the petitioner in WPMS No. 1800 of 2026 stated that since the eviction notice had been quashed in the connected matter, the relief claimed in the second petition was no longer being pressed. The court disposed of WPMS No. 1800 of 2026 in view of that statement.
Order
Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari allowed WPMS No. 2992 of 2023 and quashed the notice dated 5 October 2023 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) insofar as it related to the petitioners. The court expressly clarified that the order would not preclude respondent nos. 1 and 2 from taking necessary steps, as per law, against persons found to be in unlawful possession of Railways land. WPMS No. 1800 of 2026 was disposed of as not pressed. Both orders were passed on 16 June 2026.