Mr.B.S.Raiguru, learned Central Govt. counsel files memo of appearance on behalf of the appellants, which is accepted and kept on record. Respondent is absent on call. Since this is a matter of 2012, we have gone through the records and disposed of the matter on merit.

        Heard learned Central Govt. Counsel.

2.   The case of the complainant is that East Coast Railway has leased out the Western side of railway  lands at Rayagada to different persons for which the rent demanded by the Railways was duly paid by the persons in whose favour the lands were released on lease. The Railway authorities also collected licence fees for making/using the said land for commercial purpose of various types and the lease period was till 31.3.2011. When the said lease was in force, on 25.10.2010 suddenly, the OPs along with R.P.F. staff with the help of local police demolished the structures without giving any chance to the complainant to remove his belongings from the said premises. Challenging the said action of opp.parties the complainant filed complaint petition before learned District Forum, Rayagada in CC Case No. 70 of 2011 enclosing the receipt showing payment of Rs.502.70 to South Eastern Railway against Plot No. 127 with a prayer to pay suitable compensation by way of money and to rehabilitate the complainant.

3.      OPs filed their written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition stating that  the OPs have not given any railway land on lease or license basis to the complainant validating up to 31.3.2011. Complainant has not brought to the notice of learned forum as to how he got/occupied the Railway land and the complainant is only Trespasser or unauthorized occupant of Railway land. The cash receipt enclosed to petition does not establish that he is a bonafide licensee of the Railway land. The local authorities i.e. District administration demolished the structure where there was an encroachment on the State High Way. It is the State Govt. and local authorities who should take steps if any for rehabilitation of the complainant and not the OPs. The OPs have not violated the provisions of fundamental rights and also principles of natural justice and hence, are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. So, there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

4.      After hearing the matter, learned Forum below passed order holding that

“In view of the programme of the Govt. for the Urban Development, the action of the opp.parties cannot be challenged before the District Forum because this is a policy of the Govt.”

Further passed following order.

“However, the victims are at large and as such the OPs are directed to rehabilitate them in suitable place without violating their fundamental rights and the loss suffered by them may be considered by the appropriate authority.”

Challenging the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      Heard learned counsel, for appellants.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the complainant B.Prasad Rao, Rayagada was never given any permission by Railways for occupation of railway land at Rayagada (Orissa) the complainant/respondent is one B.Prasad Rao but he has annexed the receipt in the complaint petition which has been issued in favour of Smt. B.Rajakumari and there is no record available in the DFR to show that B. Prasad Rao and Smt.B.Rajakumari have any type of relationship. He further submits that a licencee has no right to transfer his limited right to any person as such the complaint petition is not maintainable. We also found that the opp.parties have filed counter swearing an affidavit stating that for construction of National Highway running from Vijayawada to Ranchi (National Project) the local administration removed the encroachment but not the present appellants. Complainant has filed complaint petition by way of verification, no evidence in shape of affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Further, the nature of prayer so made by the complainant in the complaint is not tenable under the C.P.Act and the complainant has not paid any consideration to avail service from the appellants. We found that the order of the Forum below is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the same is set aside.

6.      Thus, the appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.