Uttarakhand— Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Uttarakhand High Court order, which ordered eviction of people living on the land claimed by the India Railways on the basis of which the authorities issued notice to more than 4000 families to vacate the land within a week. As soon as the notice was issued a large number of women, children, elderly and youth sat on the streets in bitter cold and protested against the decision of the Uttarakhand HC. The majority of the residents belong to the Muslim community, who are around 50 thousand in number. The people protesting claim that they are living in this area for many years on the basis of valid documents.

Objecting to the High Court directive to evict the residents, the Supreme Court said “50,000 people cannot be cleared-off in 7 days”.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay Soka passed the order on December 20, 2022, issuing notice to the State of Uttarakhand and the Railways in a batch of special leave petitions filed against the judgment passed by a bench of the High Court.

The court has posted the matter for February 7^th 2023 and has also directed the state and the Indian railways to reach a “practical solution”.

Supreme Court also factored in two major arguments like the lease claimed by the residents and their assertion that people came after 1947 and that the lands were auctioned.

“People stayed there for so many reasons. Some rehabilitation has to be given. There are so many settlements there. How can you demand them to clear off in seven days ?” observed Justice SK Kaul...  

The report carried out by The Mooknayak had also mentioned the locals saying that one plan was submitted by the Railways before the Uttarakhand HC claiming the land in question, apart from that plan the Railways has no valid documents available, and on the basis of the same plan, the Uttarakhand High Court ruled in their favor that the land was illegally occupied and should be vacated. Although, the land lease documents were produced on behalf of the victim families, the court ignored them.

Justice Oka said “the people say that they have been living there for over 50 years“

Justice Kaul said “People have been living there for the last 50-60 years, some rehabilitation has to be done, even if the land belongs to the railways.”

Justice Oka said that the High Court has passed the order without listening to the affected parties. He said “take out a practical solution. This is a humanitarian issue.”

Justice Kaul said ” The humanitarian issue arises due to the long duration of the occupation. Some one will have to verify the documents”

Objecting to the orders issued by the High Court Justice Oka said “It would be inappropriate to say that people living there for decades will be evicted by deploying the paramilitary forces.”

Hearing the case, the bench asked whether there was a demarcation between government land and railway land. The bench also asked whether it was true that proceedings under the Public Premises Act were pending.

Additional Solicitor General of India Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the State and the Railways concurred that the land belongs to the Railways. She also asserted that several orders of eviction have been passed under the Public Premises Act. Whereas, Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners submitted that they were unilateral orders passed during Covid.

While appearing for some of the petitioners senior advocate Dr. Colin Gonsalves submitted that petitioners’ families have been in possession of the land since pre-independence and government leases which were done in their favour.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra also said that many petitioners had executed the government leases in their favour. Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid said that many properties fell under “Nazul”.

The judge said, "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ASG has emphasised the need for the railways. The moot point to be considered whether the complete land is to vest in the railways or whether the State government is claiming a part of the land".

Apart from that, there are issues of occupants claiming rights on the land as lessees or auction purchasers. We are on the way the order has been passed as there cannot be uprooting of 50,000 people in 7 days. A workable arrangement is necessary to segregate people who may have rights/no rights coupled with schemes of rehabilitation which already exists while recognizing the need of the railways.

The Court clarified that there was no injunction on the proceedings to be carried out under the Public Premises Act. The Deputy Advocate General of Uttarakhand Jatinder Kumar Sethi accepted the notice on the behalf of the State Government.

Arguments  raised in the petition

The petition says that the petitioners are poor people who are valid residents of Nai Basti Mohalla in Nai Basti, Haldwani district for more than 70 years. According to the petitioners, the Uttarakhand High Court passed the orders of eviction of more than 20,000 people residing in more than 4000 houses overlooking the fact that proceedings regarding the title of the residents were pending before the district magistrate.

It is being told that the names of the local residents are registered in the house tax register of the Nagar Nigam as they have been paying the house tax regularly for many years.

Apart from this, the area has 5 government schools, one hospitals and two overhead water tanks. Further, it has been stated that the petitioners and the long-settled physical possession of the petitioners has been recognized by the State and its agencies. Some of them date back to the pre-independence era and have been provided gas and water connection. Aadhar card numbers have also been issued bearing the current residential address.