ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) IN or about 1947, Bengal Assam Railway authorities (now known as Eastern Railway) granted a licence in favour of the respondents for setting up a cold storage on the railway land at Sealdah Railway station to facilitate preservation of vegetable and other foodstuff being carried through railway transport. However, no formal agreement and/or specific licence was placed before us. Hence, we are unable to know the terms of the said licence. ( 2 ) BY a letter dated 3rd May, 1947 the Chief Commercial Manager, Bengal assam Railways (pages 49-50 of the Paper Book) asked the D8/ca to fix the licence fee and forward the structural plan of the said cold storage. Apart from the said letter no contemporaneous record could be produced by either of the parties for our perusal. Accordingly, the cold storage was constructed and the same was inaugurated on June 16,1948. ( 3 ) IN 1976 enhance rent was demanded by the railway authorities. On 29th september, 1997 the licence was terminated for non-payment of fees. There had been series of discussions for an amicable solution. Ultimately, on November 22, 1994 a notice of eviction was issued by the railway authorities. The said notice was challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition in this Court wherein this Court by an interim order directed the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of arrear licence fee. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 30th June, 2000 wherein learned Single judge gave liberty to the railway authorities to take necessary steps in the matter of eviction of the respondents in accordance with law. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to such liberty being given by this Court a further notice was issued on October 10, 2000 wherein the railway authorities asked the respondents to vacate the premises under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" ). The petitioner replied to the said notice. Ultimately, the Estate officer, Eastern Railway by his order dated March 7, 2001 directed eviction of the respondents. Challenging the said order of eviction a second writ petition was filed wherein learned Single Judge by his order dated March 28, 2001 quashed the notice dated October 10, 2000 and the order flowing therefrom dated March 7, 2001. Ultimately, the Estate officer, Eastern Railway by his order dated March 7, 2001 directed eviction of the respondents. Challenging the said order of eviction a second writ petition was filed wherein learned Single Judge by his order dated March 28, 2001 quashed the notice dated October 10, 2000 and the order flowing therefrom dated March 7, 2001. According to His Lordship the expression "in accordance with law" stipulated in the earlier order of this Court dated June 30, 2000 meant revocation of licence by the railway administration. ( 5 ) SINCE the licence was not revoked the notice of eviction was bad. The railway authority accepted the said order and issued a further notice dated october 8, 2001 inter alia revoking the licence and demanding possession of the railway land in question. ( 6 ) THE said notice dated October 8, 2001 (pages 114-115 of the Paper Book)was challenged by way of a third writ petition. Learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated May 20,2001 quashed the said notice and once again directed the railway authorities to act in accordance with law. ( 7 ) THE order of the learned Single Judge dated May 20, 2001 is the subject-matter of challenge in the instant appeal. ( 8 ) ON a proper appreciation of the facts as discussed hereinbefore the following facts are admitted as would appear from the pleadings as well as documents contained in the Paper Book : (1) Licence was granted in 1947 for using the railway land against a monthly licence fee. (2) The licence was granted for the purpose of construction of a cold storage on the said railway land. (3) The permission for construction was given simultaneously with the licence granted for using the railway land. (4) TWO earlier notices were quashed by this Court reiterating that the railway authorities must act in accordance with law. ( 9 ) THE learned Single Judge in his judgment and order under appeal held inter alia as follows :- (I) The objection of the railway authorities that the writ petition was premature was not tenable in view of the fact that the impugned notice was not only to revoke the licence but also with a threat to evict the petitioner from the plot of land in question. The said fact was also evident from the conduct of the railway authorities to the extent that despite the order of stay granted by the learned Single Judge the railway authorities on 22nd October, 2001 wanted to take physical possession of the said premises. (ii) The contention of the railway authorities that subject land was on lease not a licence was also not tenable as would appear from the judgment and order of Barin Ghosh, J which was accepted by the parties. Once the said order of Barin Ghosh, J had been acted upon by the railway authorities by proceeding under leave granted by the said order the railway authorities could not argue to the contrary. (iii) There was a clear admission on the part of the railways in the pleadings that the subject grant was a licence. (iv) Since in the pleading railways did not make out a case of lease they were not permitted to make out any contrary case from the bar. (v) Under section 60 of the Easement Act coupled with a transfer of property was not revocable by the grantor as the licnece relying on the said grant executed construction of permanent nature by incurring huge expenditure. Although the provisions of Easement Act was not applicable in the State of West Bengal the principle of law stipulated under section 60 (b) of the Easement Act would be applicable. Learned judge relied on various Calcutta decisions on this point which consistently held that a licence coupled with an interest in an immoveable property was irrevocable in view of the underlying principles laid down in section 60 (b) of the Easement Act. The learned judge also held in this regard that the Full Bench decision of the allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1933, Allahabad, Page 735 (In the matter of: Barma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Ltd.)had no application in the instant case as the same had considered a case wherein the question of payment of stamp duty had been involved therein. (vi) After holding that the licence was irrevocable the learned Judge, relying on two Calcutta decisions reported in 19 Calcutta Law Journal, page 321 (Motilal vs. Kalu Mondal) and 12, Calcutta Law Journal, page 443 (Surnomoyee Peshakar vs. Chunder Kumar Das) held that the licnece could be revoked only upon payment of compensation. (vi) After holding that the licence was irrevocable the learned Judge, relying on two Calcutta decisions reported in 19 Calcutta Law Journal, page 321 (Motilal vs. Kalu Mondal) and 12, Calcutta Law Journal, page 443 (Surnomoyee Peshakar vs. Chunder Kumar Das) held that the licnece could be revoked only upon payment of compensation. (vii) Need for the railway authorities was also gone into and examined by the learned Judge and the learned Judge ultimately found that there was no public need involved as alleged by the railway authorities, on the contrary the existence of the cold storage was also in the public interest. (viii) Ultimately the learned Judge quashed the impugned notice after observing that the railway authorities must proceed in accordance with law. ( 10 ) FROM the aforesaid analysis of the judgment moot question involved herein is as follows :-was the railway authority entitled to revoke the subject licence and if so, under what circumstances and under what procedure ? ( 11 ) LET us first examine the public need as it goes to the root of the matter. On perusal of the pleadings and analyzing the sequence of events as had been correctly done by the learned Single Judge we do not find any definite case of need made out by the railway authorities. This was caused due to the lackadaisical attitude on the part of the railway officials. One can not shut his eyes to the acute need of space at the Sealdah Station. Lakhs of people coming out from suburban and rural areas visiting the city everyday have to face tremendous difficulties while availing the Sealdah Station. In course of hearing the master plan of the modernisation scheme of the concerned railway station was produced before us. We also can not overlook the fact that the modernisation programme of the said station is under speedy progress. The cold storage is situated in between the North Station and South Station. To make out a corridor between these two stations as well as for construction of an administrative block the area now occupied by the cold storage is urgently needed. Hence, we cannot conceive of the idea that there was no public need for the said plot of land and we hold accordingly. To make out a corridor between these two stations as well as for construction of an administrative block the area now occupied by the cold storage is urgently needed. Hence, we cannot conceive of the idea that there was no public need for the said plot of land and we hold accordingly. ( 12 ) NOW question comes as to what would be the appropriate procedure for obtaining possession of the said land in question by the railways. Earlier two calcutta decisions in the case of Motilal (supra) and Surnomoyee Peshakar (supra) this Court consistently held that the principles of Easement Act would be applicable in the State. We do not find any scope of disagreement on this score. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also could not make any impressive submission to that extent save and except citing the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court. We have carefully perused that decision of the learned Single Judge wherein His Lordship held that the said decision had no application in the instant case as it related to payment of stamp duty. The learned Judge correctly held so and we subscribe the same view. Hence, the decision of the learned Judge that the said licence was irrevocable in view of provision of section 60 (b) of the Easement Act was accurate and we hold accordingly. ( 13 ) IN case of the irrevocable licence if the grantor wants to have possession back by terminating the licence it can be done upon payment of compensation. That is the consistent view of our Court as held in the case of Motilal (supra)and Surnomoyee Peshakar (supra) and the learned Judge rightly applied the ratio decided in the said two Calcutta case and we affirm the decision of the learned Judge on that score and hold accordingly. ( 14 ) AFTER holding that there had been a public need for the respondent in respect of the subject plot of land and the licence can only be revoked upon payment of compensation if we stop here it would give rise to another series of litigations for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of compensation. We have examined the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971. We do not find any methodology therein to deal with the present case. We have examined the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971. We do not find any methodology therein to deal with the present case. Hence, if the railway authorities want to get back possession they would have to revoke the licence and file a civil suit for possession of the property upon payment of adequate compensation to be assessed by the Civil court. As we have just now said that this would lead to a protracted litigation of another decade that would forestall the modernization programme to a substantial extent for the ends of justice and keeping in view the public need we adopt a speedy measure for resolving the issue. We accordingly direct as follows :- (1) A panel valuer of this Court having knowledge in assessing the value of the plant and machinery and building would value the said property being cost of constructed portion as well as plant and machinery embedded therein. (2) The Registrar General of this Court is directed to appoint a valuer from the approved panel of this Court and inform him accordingly. (3) The valuer would value the property upon giving adequate opportunity to both parties for making representation on the issue of valuation. (4) The said valuation process must be completed within a period of two months from date. (5) The valuer would inform the parties accordingly. (6) In case any of the parties feels aggrieved by the said valuation he would be entitled to challenge the said value in accordance with law. (7) The subject licence granted by the railway authority would stand revoked upon expiry of a period of three months from date. (8) The railway authorities would only be entitled to recover the possession upon payment of compensation so to be assessed by the valuer in terms of this order. (9) In any event the respondent in the appeal being Sealdah Cold Storage pvt. Ltd. would not be entitled to refuse possession in case the compensation amount so to be assessed by the valuer is paid by the railway authority. (10) The concerned cold storage would be entitled to remove any part of the plant and machinery or construction. In such event they would have to notify the valuer so that the same was not made a part of the value assessment. (10) The concerned cold storage would be entitled to remove any part of the plant and machinery or construction. In such event they would have to notify the valuer so that the same was not made a part of the value assessment. (11) It is reiterated that the railway authority would be entitled to take physical possession of the cold storage by demolishing the present construction upon payment of compensation so to be assessed by the valuer and the cold storage would not be entitled to forestall such process in any manner whatsoever. ( 15 ) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( 16 ) THERE would be no order as to costs. ( 17 ) URGENT xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for. Appeal disposed of.