IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9793 of 2009 ***** Ram Babu s/o late Madan Prasad R/o Shop keeper of Mairwa Railway Feeder Road, P.S. Mairwa, District-Siwan. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary of Railway, New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Manager, North Eastern Railway, Lahartara, Varanasi (U.P.) 3. The Section Engineer/Works, North Eastern Railway, Siwan. 4. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Collector, Siwan. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Siwan. 7. The Chairman, District Board, Siwan. 8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Siwan Sadar, Siwan. 9. The Circle Officer, Mairwa, Siwan. …. …. Respondents WITH CWJC No.9803 of 2009 ***** Vidya Sagar Singh son of Late Tilak Bhagar resident of Shop keeper of Mairwa Railway Feeder Road, P.S. Mairwa, District-Siwan. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary of Railway, New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Manager, North Eastern Railway, Lahartara, Varanasi (U.P.) 3. The Section Engineer/Works, North Eastern Railway, Siwan. 4. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Collector, Siwan. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Siwan. 7. The Chairman, District Board, Siwan. 8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Siwan Sadar, Siwan. 9. The Circle Officer, Mairwa, Siwan. …. …. Respondents WITH CWJC No.9804 of 2009 ***** Nepal Sharma son of Late Kunj Bihar Sharma resident of Shop keeper of Mairwa Railway Feeder Road, P.S. Mairwa, District-Siwan. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary of Railway, New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Manager, North Eastern Railway, Lahartara, Varanasi (U.P.) 3. The Section Engineer/Works, North Eastern Railway, Siwan. 4. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Collector, Siwan. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Siwan. - 2 - 7. The Chairman, District Board, Siwan. 8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Siwan Sadar, Siwan. 9. The Circle Officer, Mairwa, Siwan. …. …. Respondents WITH CWJC No.9811 of 2009 ***** Jamuna Sah son of Late Jawahar Sah resident of Shop keeper of Mairwa Railway Feeder Road, P.S. Mairwa, District-Siwan. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary of Railway, New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Manager, North Eastern Railway, Lahartara, Varanasi (U.P.) 3. The Section Engineer/Works, North Eastern Railway, Siwan. 4. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Collector, Siwan. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Siwan. 7. The Chairman, District Board, Siwan. 8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Siwan Sadar, Siwan. 9. The Circle Officer, Mairwa, Siwan. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Senior Advocate For the State : Mr. Kumar Malendu, Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General-VIII Mr. Arjun Prasad, Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel-XV Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel –XVI Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel-XVII For the Zila Parishad : Mr. Dhannanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Railways : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate ----------- 2. 18.8.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the petitioners are supposed to be the licensee, as alleged in the writ application, of the District Board of Siwan but the reason for them to rush to this Court is that the State authorities have been directed by the Railways to identify and demarcate the land. - 3 - This has rattled the petitioners because they foresee this as a prelude to their eviction from the property on which they claim to be staying for many a decade. A general notice contained in Annexure-7, which is undated, has been brought in support of the said contention. Learned counsel for the Railway contends that the status and their illegal possession is apparent from a decision which has been rendered by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12962 of 2002, which is dated 15th April, 2004 and is contained in Annexure-3. If this be the position then there is no occasion for this Court to extend any protection or interfere with such a matter at this stage. From the submissions made at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners, it is apparent that the petitioners are trying to raise a bogey of ownership of the land in question because it is also not clear whether the land belongs to the District Board or the Railways, if that be so then nothing can be done against them as is contended. The factual position being such this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter and exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Remedy, if any, for the petitioners may be to a civil court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised. The writ applications stand dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)