IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.470 of 2011 IN CWJC No. 17614 of 2008 With I.A.No. 2126 of 2011 ==================================================== Goomti Dukandar Vendors Kalyan Samiti, Station Road, Fatuha, Patna through its Secretary, Shankar Tanti son of Late Ramji Prasad, resident of Mirzapur Nohata, Ward No. 17, Fatuha, District-Patna - Appellant Versus 1. The Union Of India through its Secretary, Minister of Railways. 2. The General Manager, East Central Railway Zone Hajipur, P.O.+ P.S. Hajipur, District-Vaishali 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur. 4. The Senior Divisonal Railway Engineer, (Cord.), East Central Railway, Danapur. 5. The Superintendent, Railway Police Force, Patna Zone 6. The Officer Incharge, Fatuha Railway Police Force, Fatuha, Patna - Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 17.03.2011 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 21st December 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 17614 of 2008. 2 The appellant-writ petitioner is an Association of shopkeepers operating their business on the Railway land near Fatuha station. The appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 17614 of 2008 for protection against the demolition of shops illegally constructed on the Railway land. Pending the petition, the appellant filed Interlocutory application No. 10566 of 2010 for permission to amend the petition. Under the proposed amendment the appellant sought a direction against respondent Railway to construct a commercial complex on the Railway land and to allot the shops to the members of the appellant. It may be noted that the said application was neither pressed nor granted. Thus the amendment stood refused. Under the impugned order the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Nevertheless, the learned Single Judge has observed that in the event the Railway constructs a commercial complex on its land the shops may be allotted to the members of the appellant association. Learned Advocate Mr. Bindhyachal Singh has appeared for the appellant-association. He has submitted that in view of its 2002 policy, Annexure-1 to the Appeal, the learned Single Judge ought to have issued direction to the respondent-Railway to construct the Commercial Complex and to allot the shops to the members of the appellant-association. 3 We see no substance in this Appeal. The learned Single Judge has granted relief without being prayed for. The members of the appellant-association cannot claim a possessory right over the land on account of their illegal occupation, however long. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Bibhash ( R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)