By Sunil Sonker
Mussoorie, 25 Feb: Following a notice issued by the Northern Railway regarding alleged encroachment on railway land in the Oak Grove School, Jhadipani, matters have escalated. On the one hand, the Railway Administration has issued an ultimatum to vacate the land immediately, claiming unauthorised occupation of 40×25 square feet of land. On the other hand, local residents have launched protests. According to the Railway Administration, Ashu Gupta (son of Padam Gupta) has encroached upon approximately 40×25 square feet of railway land. Notices were issued in the past, directing the land to be vacated, but the encroachment has not yet been removed. The Railway has issued a clear warning that the parties concerned must vacate the land immediately, or legal action will be taken against them under the Public Premises Act, 1971. Railway officials say that, if the encroachment is not removed within the stipulated timeframe, legal action will be initiated. The process of eviction may be carried out forcibly, and the entire cost of the process will be recovered from the individual concerned. Given the seriousness of the matter, the railway administration has also prepared to conduct a joint inspection and demarcation with the Revenue Department and the local administration to clarify the actual status of the land. Railway officials have stated categorically that any encroachment on public property will not be tolerated.
Northern Railway has indicated that strict action will continue in such cases in the future.After receiving the notices, local residents have questioned the railway administration’s actions. They say they have a valid old registry and the area has already been demarcated. The protesters allege that railway officials are issuing notices without sufficient evidence and are attempting to harass them unnecessarily. They say that, if action is taken without concrete proof, they will openly oppose it.This issue has now become a topic of discussion at the local level. On one hand, the railway administration is citing the protection of public property while, on the other hand, the affected parties are claiming the action is unfair, based on their documents. It remains to be seen whether joint demarcation or further administrative proceedings will resolve this dispute or whether the matter will escalate further.
About The Author
