Expired way leave permissions cannot override later vested rights or bypass railway land construction restrictions.

An expired way leave permission could not be revived or treated as a renewal after a long lapse where the petitioner had later obtained valid permissions and agreements creating conflicting rights over an underpass. The attempt to characterise the work as a repair of an underground pipeline was inconsistent with the materials showing overhead construction on railway land, which was barred by the Railway Engineering Code and the Railway Land Management policy framework. The Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code could not create new public law rights or displace the petitioner's existing rights. The impugned railway communications and consequential steps were therefore stated to be illegal and void.

---

---

Issues: Whether the purported revival or renewal of the expired way leave permission in favour of respondent no. 6 was valid in law, and whether it could override the petitioner's subsequently created rights in respect of the underpass and permit overhead construction over railway land.

Analysis: The earlier way leave permission in favour of respondent no. 6 had expired in 2017, whereas the petitioner's permissions and agreements for the underpass were granted only in 2019 and 2022. When the petitioner's rights were created, no subsisting way leave permission was in force in favour of respondent no. 6. The impugned communication described the grant as a revival or renewal, but a permission long expired could not be revived as a renewal after seven years; in substance, it amounted to a fresh permission. The attempt to present the work as mere repair of an underground pipeline was not consistent with the materials showing an overhead structure over the petitioner's underpass. Such construction was prohibited by Clause 1033(12) of the Railway Engineering Code, which barred construction on railway land other than the permitted exceptions, and the Railways could not ignore the binding policy framework in the Master Circular on Railway Land Management. The Court also held that the Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code could not create new public law rights or displace existing rights already created in favour of the petitioner.

Conclusion: The revival or renewal of the expired way leave permission in favour of respondent no. 6 was illegal and void, and the petitioner was entitled to relief against the impugned railway communications and all consequential steps.

Ratio Decidendi: An expired way leave permission cannot be revived as a renewal after a long lapse when intervening valid permissions have created conflicting rights, and any grant that seeks to bypass binding railway policy and code restrictions on construction over railway land is ultra vires and unenforceable.

---