Kamal Arfi Gaddi vs Union of India

Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The notice dated 11th March, 2016 issued by the Senior Section Engineer/Land, South Eastern Railway, Tata Nagar, asking the petitioner to vacate the railway land at Jugsalai alleged unauthorisedly occupied by him was under challenge in the present writ application.

Petitioner has stated at paragraph-7 of the writ application that as per Khatiyan the land is Anabad land of Bihar (now Jharkhand) bearing Khesra no. 1018/1028, area 0.03. The names entered therein is of Tata Iron and Steel Company and of Md. Salim who is son of the petitioner and is under his unauthorized possession since 1970.

It is now apparent from the stand of the respondent-Railway brought on record through counter affidavit and categorically stated at paragraph-6 thereof that on 28th March, 2016 the railway authority in assistance with the local authorities have removed the unauthorized structures including the unauthorized structure of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, tried to question the legality of the notice impugned in the writ petition on the grounds that no time for reply was given and that petitioner''s reply furnished therein on 17th March, 2016 through speed post through his Advocate has been refused to be received.

Be that as it may, the notice dated 11th March, 2016 has already been acted upon by removal of the alleged structure claimed by the petitioner. There are no other prayer in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse of law if at all he has valid claim of right, title and interest before the competent court of law for any restoration of piece of land or for damages.

However, this writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.