A series of RTI replies obtained by Mumbai-based lawyer Saurav Sanyal has brought to light a troubling case of alleged administrative inertia by Central Railway in relation to an unauthorised dargah standing on railway property near Kalyan Railway Station.
The structure is situated close to the office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Works & Track), Kalyan, and near railway tracks. Photographs placed on record show a green-domed religious structure standing within railway premises, with railway tracks and railway infrastructure visible in close proximity. The photographs also indicate that the structure has continued to exist over a period of time, despite repeated disclosures by the Railways that the land belongs to the railway administration and that the structure is an encroachment.
The issue is not merely about one structure. It is about a larger and more uncomfortable question: does the Indian State enforce the law equally when the encroachment is religious in nature, or does it retreat into silence when political and communal sensitivities are involved?
In its reply dated 17 July 2023, Central Railway stated that permission had not been granted for the said religious structure, and that, as per railway records, it was an encroachment. The same reply also stated that the railway land had been acquired in the year 1910. In another reply dated 29 August 2023, Central Railway stated that the eviction process had been initiated.
Yet, despite this clear admission, the structure remained.
This raises a serious question. If the Railways itself admits that the structure is an encroachment, why has the matter remained pending for years?
The Kalyan case must be understood in that broader context.
Railway land is not ordinary land. It is a vital part of public infrastructure. It is needed for safety, maintenance, future expansion, access to tracks, movement of railway officials, and emergency response. An unauthorised structure between or near railway tracks cannot be treated as a harmless local issue. The fact that this structure is reportedly close to the Assistant Divisional Engineer’s office makes the continued inaction even more difficult to understand.
If the authorities responsible for railway works and track maintenance are themselves located near the site, it is impossible to say that the encroachment escaped official notice. The question, therefore, is not whether the Railways knew. The question is why the Railways did not act decisively.
Saurav Sanyal’s correspondence to the Railway Minister and the General Manager, Central Railway, therefore deserves serious attention. His letters do not merely complain about a local encroachment. They document a pattern: RTI admissions, repeated references to eviction, unclear records, absence of final action, and continued existence of the structure.
The Railways must now answer specific questions. who is responsible for the delay?
The public cannot be expected to accept “under process” as a permanent answer.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that unauthorised religious structures on public land cannot be allowed to continue merely because they are religious. The constitutional principle is simple: public property belongs to the public. No religious group, majority or minority, has a right to appropriate it without lawful authority.
The Kalyan railway dargah case is therefore not a dispute between communities. It is a test of the Indian State’s honesty. Either the law applies equally, or it does not. Either railway land is protected, or it is surrendered. Either illegal encroachments are removed, or public authorities admit that religious pressure is stronger than the rule of law.
If an unauthorised religious structure exists on railway land, it must be removed in accordance with law. Due process must be followed, but due process cannot become an excuse for endless inaction. The Railways must publish the status of proceedings, fix responsibility for delay, and complete the lawful eviction process within a reasonable timeline.
The real issue is whether the State still has the courage to protect public land without fear, favour, or appeasement.
— Shailendar Karthikeyan
