Joseph Louis Adaikalaraj v. The Divisional Engineer,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Rev.Apl W(MD)No.33 of 2026 in W.P.(MD)No.30909 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD)No.4923 of 2026 Joseph Louis Adaikalaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Divisional Engineer, Southern Railways, Thiruchirappalli Junction, Thiruchirappalli.
2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Southern Railways, Thiruchirappalli Junction, Thiruchirappalli.
3.The Senior Section Engineer (Works) Southern Railways, Thiruchirappalli Junction, Thiruchirappalli.
... Respondents Prayer: Review Application filed under Section 47 Rule 1 & 2(10) r/w 114 of C.P.C r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.30909 of 2025, dated 03.11.2025.
1/5
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Raman Senior Counsel For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan DSGI
ORDER
The review applicant filed W.P.(MD)No.30909 of 2025 challenging the proceedings dated 23.10.2025 issued by the third respondent and also the consequential communication dated 25.10.2025 issued by the second respondent. The substance of the impugned communication was that the writ petitioner should vacate the shed that is within TPJ railway campus and which is in his occupation. The writ petitioner is a railways contractor. After considering the rival contentions and going through the entire materials on record, I dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 03.11.2025. I had noted that the writ petitioner is an unauthorized occupant. Even though the authorities were obliged to follow the statutory procedures laid down in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, I declined to grant relief to the writ petitioner since he did not have an iota of right or 2/5
title over the petition mentioned land. However, taking note of his long occupation, I granted him four months time to vacate and hand over possession to the railway authorities. Seeking review of the order dated 03.11.2025 dismissing the writ petition, this review application has been filed.
2.The learned senior counsel appearing for the review applicant submitted that for over three generations, the writ petitioner's family has been executing contracts for railways and that therefore, they require the space for keeping their materials. This submission does not appeal to me. I had specifically dealt with the said contention in Paragraph No.11 of the order dated 03.11.2025 which reads as follows:- "11.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the purpose for such allotment was originally made continues to subsist. It is true that he continues to be a railway contractor. But it is seen that those subsisting contracts are not with the Trichy railway junction but with the other railway junctions. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in asserting that he can continue to occupy such a large chunk of land within Trichy railway junction campus."
3/5
3.In any event, the question is one of legal right. When the writ petitioner does not have any legal right to occupy the place in question, he cannot insist that he should be allowed to continue in occupation. 4.The learned senior counsel contended that the writ petitioner can be dispossessed only by adhering to statutory procedures. This contention was also dealt with by me in Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the order. I specifically noted that the writ petitioner is not being suddenly thrown out. He has been put on notice. I had also given four months time to vacate. The order was passed by me on 03.11.2025. Having enjoyed the extension of time granted by me, the review applicant cannot question the said order.
5.There is no error apparent on the face of record. The review application stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.03.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rmi 4/5
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi Rev.Apl W(MD)No.33 of 2026 in W.P.(MD)No.30909 of 2025 26.03.2026 5/5