IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7305 of 2008 1. Ulta Pul Footpath Dukandar Kalyan Samiti, Station Road, Bhagalpur through its President Md. Shamshad Alam, Post-Sujaganj Post Office, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Bhagalpur. 2. Md. Razi Hussain, son of Late Md. Medhi Hussain, resident of Khilaft Nagar (Sajangi), P.S.-Habibpur, District-Bhagalpur. 3. Md. Shamsad Alam, son of Late Md. Shariff, resident of Hussainabad, Mugalpur, P.S.-Mohajidpur, District-Bhagalpur. -Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Urban Development and Building Construction, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 3. Bhagalpur Nagar Nigam through its Commissioner, Bhagalpur, Office situated at Kahachari Bhagalpur, P.S.-Kotwali, Bhagalpur. 4. Commissioner Nagar Nigam, Bhagalpur, Office sutated at Kahachari Bhagalpur, P.S.-Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Shivajee Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Braj Nandan Tiwary. For the Respondent Nos.3&4 : Mrs. Pravina Kumari ------------- 02 26.11.2009 This writ application has been filed by Ulta Pul Footpath Dukandar Kalyan Samiti of Bhagalpur. The Samiti, it claims is of various small vendors, who have small shop or platforms in the vicinity of Ulta Pul near the Bhagalpur Railway Station and even selling vegetables and other articles therefor generations. This litigation does not concern any part of the Railway land, as apparently the Railway has already been cleared of such dwellers. Their prayer in the present writ application is for their rehabilitation as a consequence of they being removed either from the Railway land or from the land of the Corporation. Mr. Shivajee Pandey, learned Senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition rightly submits that it is a larger social issue than an legal issue, because so far as legality is - 2 - concerned, petitioners may not have a right to remain on the land as their occupation is not pursuant to any lease or licence. He may be correct. Court have insisted that such dwellers need to be dealt in a manner where their right of livelihood is protected, though right to livelihood is not enforceable in itself being a right which emanates with a person for his survival. If people have been permitted to virtually settled at a place for decades if not generations than uprooting them without rehabilitation at the hand of the State may not be proper though may be lawful. The question is, under these circumstances what relief can this Court grant. Having considered the matter, in my view, the only relief that the Court can grant is that it is for the authorities to see as to who are the genuine claimants and if possible see to their rehabilitation within the administrative constraints that is there, but that would not inure to the right of the petitioner to insist upon continuance at their respective place till rehabilitation is worked out. A public road or a public land cannot be occupied to the detriment of public at large by any person except by way of legal lease or licence that admittedly the petitioners do not have. The administration considering the long stay would tackle this problem as a social problem, rather than a problem dealing with legal rights that is what this Court can observe at the maximum. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)