JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Borkakati, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Writ petition has been filed making a claim of compensation on account of death of one Prabhat Barman, son of Sri Madhu Nath Barman, the petitioner No. 1 and grievous injury suffered by Sri Nripen Kalita, son of Sri Nagen Kalita, petitioner No. 2. The learned Single Judge has found that the grievous injury has been sustained and death was caused on account of fall of wall of the water tank of N. F. Railway situated at Satpukhuri Hilltop near Uzanbazar area of the Guwahati city on the night of 11.2.1999 resulting in death of Prabhat Barman, the son of the petitioner No. 1 and causing grievous injuries to Sri Nripen Kalita, the son of the petitioner No. 2. Learned Single Judge has not passed any order ascertaining or quantifying the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled and it was left to the Railways to ascertain the compensation amount on account of death of the petitioner No. 1's son and for grievous injuries sustained by the son of the petitioner No. 2. This appeal is being filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that before directing payment of compensation amount, which is to be determined by the railways, the learned Single Judge has not gone into the question whether the railway is at all responsible for payment of compensation. 3. It is alleged in the appeal that the wall has fallen on account of the fact that to augment the filtered water the railway constructed the second filter bed of 16,000 Gallon/hr capacity in the year 1990 on the Hilltop at Uzanbazar. The filter bed has to be constructed by extending the structure that already housed the old filter bed No. 1. Due to scarcity of space, the south side of the foundation walls structure of the extended portion had to be protected by constructing a retaining wall along the toe of the hill in the year 1990. The retaining wall was to provide stability to the shape of the hill. The new filter bed so constructed was blown to ground level. Due to scarcity of space, the south side of the foundation walls structure of the extended portion had to be protected by constructing a retaining wall along the toe of the hill in the year 1990. The retaining wall was to provide stability to the shape of the hill. The new filter bed so constructed was blown to ground level. The retaining wall has fallen down because of the unauthorized construction of hutments being crept up which has exposed the foundation of the retaining wall and, therefore, as per the railway, the accident is not on account of negligence of the railways but because of the unauthorized construction made. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in these circumstances the railway cannot be held responsible for payment of compensation. 4. On the fact emerged, it is apparent that the petitioner No. 1's son has died and the other sustained grievous injuries because of the fall of the wall constructed by the railways. If the railway could not maintain its property and because of the exposure of the foundation the wall has fallen down, the railway could not be exempted of its responsibility for payment of compensation to the persons who had suffered injuries on account of fall of the property of the railway. It cannot be a defence of the railway that because of certain facts they could not maintain their property properly and, therefore, they are not responsible for payment of compensation to third party who sustained injuries or damage on account of fall of the railway property. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in holding that the railway is responsible for payment of compensation to the petitioners as directed by the learned Single Judge. No case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2000. Appeal dismissed