Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The present petition is filed by committee of residents of Jawaharnagar Jhoopda Samittee Mandal who are residing in temporary hutments /structures since 1976 along with their family members. The present petition is filed on behalf of about 411 members /residents. Annexure-A is copy of the list of 411 members, which is later on amended to be 371. As nothing turns on that, the Court is not going into the niceties of the same as to whether they are 371 or 411. What is important for the consideration of the Court is Annexure-F, a sketch produced by the petitioners. This Annexure-F shows the actual location of the petitioners vis-a-vis other establishments –Co-operative Housing Societies, etc. on the Railway land. The learned Advocate for the petitioners did point out that the sketch is not in scale. 1.1. The learned Advocate for the petitioners apprises the Court that the alignment of the various societies situated in the railway land is correctly depicted in this sketch. The actual position at the site, meaning thereby the distance of Dhanlaxmi Apartment from the road which is shown in the upper portion in the sketch is the same as that of the hutments. Similarly, the alignment of Dhanlaxmi Row House, Siddhi Vinayak Flats and Vaibhav Flats is also the same. 1.2. Besides that, behind these Dhanlaxmi Apartment, Dhanlaxmi Row House, hutment dwellers, Siddhi Vinayak Flats, Vaibhav Flats, there are encroachments by of Bhavna Society, (Ranip), Dhanlaxmi Society, (Ranip), Vishvakarma Society, (Ranip), Kameshwar Trust Temple, K.R.Raval School, Saraswati Society, (Ranip), Tarveni School, Swaminarayan Park, Navjyot School, etc. 2. The petitioners approached this Court by filing this petition on 24.04.2006. The matter came up for consideration on 27.04.2006 before a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.J.Shethna (as he then was) & Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Dholakia. On that day, the Court passed the following order:- “1. Out of 1500 families staying near the Railway line at Wadaj, 371 petitioners could manage to approach this Court by way of this joint writ petition. Their names shown at Annexure-A. They are apprehending eviction by the Railway Administration without following due process of law. It was submitted by Mrs. Pahwa that after the issuance of notice, without passing any order, the respondents want to evict the petitioners from the land in question which is occupied by them since last 30 years. 2. Their names shown at Annexure-A. They are apprehending eviction by the Railway Administration without following due process of law. It was submitted by Mrs. Pahwa that after the issuance of notice, without passing any order, the respondents want to evict the petitioners from the land in question which is occupied by them since last 30 years. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel Ms.Pahwa and having perused the averments made in the petition as well as documents annexed to it, we are of the considered opinion that Mrs. Pahwa is able to make out atleast a case for issuance of notice. Hence, notice. Parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today. D.S. permitted.” 2.1. On the subsequent date of hearing, i.e. 29.08.2006, learned Counsel appeared for the respondents and prayed for time to file reply. Three weeks’ time was granted to file reply and the matter was ordered to be listed on 25.09.2006. 2.2. The respondents filed affidavit of one Shri R.K. Meena, Divisional Railway Manager (Works) - Respondent No. 2 herein affirmed on 18.09.2006. 2.3. The petitioners filed affidavit in rejoinder affirmed on 06.12.2006, reply to the contents of the affidavit in reply, wherein it was specifically mentioned in Para-3.3 as under:— “3.3 . . . . . . . . I say that the respondents have sold /regularized the railway land to many cooperative housing societies. I say that the railway line on which the petitioner’s huts are situated is surplus land and is not to be used by Railway. I say that the railway line shown in the map annexed at Page 41 is situated on survey no.53. I say that it is also on final plot no.20 which is actually a railway line, in extract of 7/12 of revenue record, the occupants are shown as Manav Seva Co-operative Housing Society and on the said line, (sic-land) Vaibhav Flats and Siddhi Vinayak Flats are situated. I say that on final plot no.65 in extract of 7/12, the name of Western Railway is shown but on the same, Vishwakarma Society is situated. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-’I’ to this affidavit is the copy of the abstract of 7 x 12 demonstrating the above fact. I say that on final plot no.60, which is a railway line, (sic-land) Ajay Co-operative Housing Society, Dhanlakshmi Society is situated. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-’I’ to this affidavit is the copy of the abstract of 7 x 12 demonstrating the above fact. I say that on final plot no.60, which is a railway line, (sic-land) Ajay Co-operative Housing Society, Dhanlakshmi Society is situated. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-’II’ to this affidavit is the copy of the abstract of village form no. 7 x 12, Light Bill. I say that the petitioner has reliably learnt that the said railway land is sold to these Co-operative Housing Societies or some other person. I say that the respondent has not denied these averments specifically.” (emphasis supplied). 2.4. It is after taking into consideration the contents of above affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioners, the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr. Y.R.Meena (as he then was) & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant S.Dave passed order dated 11.01.2007 which reads as under:— “Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 is directed to make the factual aspects clear that whether the land to Vaibhav Flats and Siddhi Vinayak Flats are sold or their lands were regularized by respondent Railway Authority. He is directed to file affidavit to this effect. That be done within three weeks. List on 5th February, 2007. Till then, status quo be maintained.” (emphasis supplied). 2.5. After the aforesaid order dated 11.01.2007, the respondents filed another affidavit, which was affirmed by the said officer Shri R.K.Meena, Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Western Railways, Bhavnagar Para Division - Respondent No. 2 herein affirmed on 31.01.2007, wherein it is specifically mentioned in Paras-2 and 3 as under:— “2. As regards the factual aspects relating to Vaibhav Flats and Siddhi Vinayak flats are concerned, I respectfully state that both of them are unauthorized constructions within the boundary of the railway land. They are there since before I took charge of my duty as Divisional Railway Manager (Works). All the occupants of these two properties are only squatters or encroachers with absolutely no legal rights or titles to be there. 3. I further submit that none of the above properties were even regularized as alleged. They are not sold or in any way legally alienated or otherwise transferred by any railway authority or any railway officer. In fact, no functionary of the railway administration has any power or authority to regularize any railway property. 3. I further submit that none of the above properties were even regularized as alleged. They are not sold or in any way legally alienated or otherwise transferred by any railway authority or any railway officer. In fact, no functionary of the railway administration has any power or authority to regularize any railway property. That is amply clear from the prayer clause Para 9(A) of the petition wherein the prayer is for “regularization” clearly implying there by that the occupant of the all the properties including the Vaibhav flats and Siddhi Vinayak flats is “irregular” meaning illegal.” (emphasis supplied). 2.6. It is interesting to note that inaction on the part of the Railway authorities is sought to be explained by the deponent in para-4 as under:— “4. I submit that the railway administration decided to initiate proceedings under the “public premises eviction act” but before the action could proceed the interim relief for stay of proceedings where first obtained in special civil application No.6341/1992 Annex. “C” appeared (sic-appended) to this petition and then in the present petition. Further action for eviction is not taken because the railway administration has thought it proper to wait the vacating of the interim relief already granted.” (emphasis supplied). 2.7. After taking into consideration the contents of the aforesaid affidavit, the same Bench passed an order on 27.02.2007, which reads as under:— “Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 was directed to show whether flats were constructed after sale of the land by the Railways or not. He is not able to answer to this query, but only says that as there was litigation filed against the Railways by the occupants of Vaibhav Flats and Siddhi Vinayak Flats, they could not take any steps. In the affidavit filed by the Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Western Railway, Bhavnagar Para Division, it has been stated that Vaibhav Flat and Siddhi Vinayak Flats are unauthorised constructions within the boundary of the railway land and all the occupants of these two properties are squatters or encroachers with absolutely no legal rights or titles to be there. It is further stated that none of the above properties were even regularised. The case of the present petitioners is also on parity with the occupants of Vaibhav Flats and Siddhi Vinayak Flats. When the occupants of Siddhi Vinayak Flats and Vaibhav Flats could not be removed, how hutment dwellers should be removed. It is further stated that none of the above properties were even regularised. The case of the present petitioners is also on parity with the occupants of Vaibhav Flats and Siddhi Vinayak Flats. When the occupants of Siddhi Vinayak Flats and Vaibhav Flats could not be removed, how hutment dwellers should be removed. Status-quo be maintained. List on 7.5.2007.” (emphasis supplied). 2.8. The matter then came up for consideration before the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Shah & Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.B. Antani on 19.06.2007 and the Court passed the following order:— “Mrs. Pahwa, learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the order dated 27.02.2007 was passed after hearing the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and that in spite of opportunities given by this Court, the Railway administration did not produce any notice or substantiate any assertion that the Railway administration has taken steps for eviction of the occupants of Vaibhav Flats and Siddhi Vinayak Flats for the purpose of demolition of those flats which are also on the land of Railways. Rule returnable in the first week of September 2007. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till then.” (emphasis supplied). 2.9. The respondents then filed affidavit of one Shri H.K.Gupta, Divisional Manager (Works), Bhavnagar Division, Bhavnagar - Respondent No. 2 affirmed on 20.10.2007. It is interesting to note that the deponent has stated in Para-3 as under:— “3. I say that the occupants of Vaibhav flats and Siddhivinayak flats have been duly served with eviction notices through the Managers or Vahivatdars of these properties. The office copies of the same are available with the Divisional Office. Similarly occupants of Navjyot School, Triveni School, Dhanlaxmi Flats and Dhanlaxmi Row House, Godown and shops Opp. Hari Om flats, Nava Vadaj have also been served with notices or eviction order the provision of public premises eviction Act, mostly to these parties notices have been served in 2004 and the office copies of the same are available with the Divisional Office. All these notices were verbatim the same and therefore, I have advisedly not put on record. I however say that if and when the honourable Court orders its production in court, the same will be produced. They are not produced with a view to avoid burdening the record of the case.” (emphasis supplied). 2.10. All these notices were verbatim the same and therefore, I have advisedly not put on record. I however say that if and when the honourable Court orders its production in court, the same will be produced. They are not produced with a view to avoid burdening the record of the case.” (emphasis supplied). 2.10. It is important to note a responsible officer of the rank of Divisional Railway Manager (Works) is filing an affidavit in a most cursory manner and not focusing his attention to the problem, despite direction given by this Court by order dated 11.01.2007 and 27.02.2007 and ultimately, the Court had to issue Rule on 19.06.2007. The lack of seriousness with which this issue is attended by a responsible officer of such a high rank of the Railways is evident from the averments made in para-4, which reads as under:— “4. Out of the properties maintained in amended Para 3.10, I have already dealt with some properties in the preceding paragraphs with rest the position is as follows:— (I) - (II) Gopi Annakshetra and Ganapatiji temple encroachment took place in 2006 and 2007 respectively after the present petition was filed. As interim relief is granted in the present petition it was thought advisable to wait for the result of the same. (IV) Plot No. 802 it is a vacant plot and there was no encroachment of a permanent nature so no notice has been issued. (X) Water pumping station Auda is not situated in Railway Land and therefore no notice has been issued . . . . . . .” (emphasis supplied). 2.11. The Court again reiterated its direction in order dated 13.10.2008, calling upon the respondents to clarify the position by placing on record necessary documents showing that what action is taken against all these people. (emphasis supplied). 2.12. The said direction was again reiterated in order dated 23.12.2008 when the matter was adjourned to 22.01.2009, to give one more chance to the learned Advocate for complying with the aforesaid direction. 2.13. It is thereafter that the respondents placed placed on record further reply affirmed by the same officer - Shri H.K.Gupta, Divisional Manager (Works), Bhavnagar Division, Bhavnagar affirmed on 19.11.2008 and an additional affidavit in reply affirmed on 09.12.2008. It will be appropriate to note that these affidavits, though affirmed on 19.11.2008 and 09.12.2008, were filed after order dated 23.12.2008. 2.13. It is thereafter that the respondents placed placed on record further reply affirmed by the same officer - Shri H.K.Gupta, Divisional Manager (Works), Bhavnagar Division, Bhavnagar affirmed on 19.11.2008 and an additional affidavit in reply affirmed on 09.12.2008. It will be appropriate to note that these affidavits, though affirmed on 19.11.2008 and 09.12.2008, were filed after order dated 23.12.2008. That is why it is recorded in the order that, “On record nothing is found. To give one more chance to the learned Advocate for complying with the aforesaid directions, the matter is adjourned to 22.1.2009”. (emphasis supplied). 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners, who submitted that the she is aware of the settled legal position that the petitioners cannot claim negative application of Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot pray and plead before the Court that if one unauthorized construction /encroachment is not removed by the authorities, the construction/encroachment of the petitioners also be not removed. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that this is a case which is required to be considered in light of the peculiar facts which will not attract the aforesaid principle. The learned Advocate submitted that this is a case wherein the respondent - Union of India, through Railway authorities, while acting through different offices, have indulged in a gross illegal activity and have allowed series of encroachment/s by people of various walks of life to come up on the railway land. The learned Advocate submitted that once the nature and extent of encroachment is looked into it leads to one and only one inference that the officers have deliberately kept their eyes closed to facilitate the encroachment in question. It is shocking that encroachment at such a large scale is not noticed for such a long period and even after this Court has inquired into the matter, the railway authorities avoid taking any action against them and file an affidavit to the effect that, “it was thought advisable to wait for the result of the same”. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that it is admitted by an officer of the rank of Divisional Railway Manager (Works) that there are encroachments and those encroachments are not regularized; that all the occupants of these properties are only squatters or encroachers with absolutely no legal rights or titles to be there. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that it is admitted by an officer of the rank of Divisional Railway Manager (Works) that there are encroachments and those encroachments are not regularized; that all the occupants of these properties are only squatters or encroachers with absolutely no legal rights or titles to be there. Still, for the reasons best known to that officer, he neither reports this serious matter to the higher officers nor approaches this Court for clarification of doubt, if any, in his mind, so as to take action against those rank encroachers. On the contrary, a subsequent officer, in an affidavit affirmed on 20.10.2007, i.e. almost after a year from the date of this encroachment brought to the notice of the authorities, has an audacity to say on oath that, “Gopi Annakshetra and Ganapatiji temple encroachment took place in 2006 and 2007 respectively after the present petition was filed. As interim relief is granted in the present petition it was thought advisable to wait for the result of the same”. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that there cannot be a batter and glaring illustration of officers being influenced by extraneous consideration, in favour of the people who can afford to assert extraneous consideration. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that Article 14 cannot be operated in reverse, Constitution of India does not permit discrimination on the ground of financial capacity of a person to assert extraneous consideration before the officers. The learned Advocate submitted that will not be entire out of place or out of context to request the Court to infer that the present drive undertaken by the authorities, to see that hutment dwellers are removed, is only with a view to see that the land so vacated can be then made available to other financially strong people to build upon and cause encroachments on the railway land. The learned Advocate submitted that Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit dated 18.09.2006 has referred to Special Civil Application No. 6341 of 1992, meaning thereby the question of encroachment was within the knowledge of the respondents since 1992, but still, nothing concrete is done to see that Special Civil Application No. 6341 of 1992 is got heard. The learned Advocate submitted that Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit dated 18.09.2006 has referred to Special Civil Application No. 6341 of 1992, meaning thereby the question of encroachment was within the knowledge of the respondents since 1992, but still, nothing concrete is done to see that Special Civil Application No. 6341 of 1992 is got heard. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that it is in light of these glaring facts that the petitioners are seeking protection. The learned Advocate submitted that this is recorded by this Court in its order dated 27.02.2007 as under:— “The case of the present petitioners is also on parity with the occupants of Vaibhav Flats and Siddhi Vinayak Flats. When the occupants of Siddhi Vinayak Flats and Vaibhav Flats could not be removed, how the hutment dwellers should be removed.” 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that page No. 41 - Annexure-F, a sketch, was sufficient to shock anybody. It shows that the entire land is encroached upon by more than 12 establishments - either in the form of apartments, Row houses, societies, a temple, a trust, a school and so on. The learned Advocate submitted that this document is placed on record on the day of filing of the petition, i.e. on on 24.04.2006, but till date, the respondents have not taken note of the same with required sincerity and seriousness which could have been shown by the details of the steps taken. The only attempt is to see that this petition is dismissed and they get free hand to remove these hutment dwellers so that more land becomes available for being dealt with by these officers for other financially strong people. The learned Advocate submitted that this is the only inference which can be drawn from the record of this case. 6. Mr. Vin, learned Advocate for the respondents - Railway authorities, relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. K.Prasad & Anr., reported in AIR 2007 SC 2701 . The learned Advocate for the respondents heavily relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in Paras-13 and 14, relevant part of which read as under:— “13. . . . . . . . . . . vs. K.Prasad & Anr., reported in AIR 2007 SC 2701 . The learned Advocate for the respondents heavily relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in Paras-13 and 14, relevant part of which read as under:— “13. . . . . . . . . . . if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or even a group of individuals, others, though falling in the same category, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the writ courts for enforcement of the same irregularity on the reasoning that the similar benefit has been denied to them. Any direction for enforcement of such claim shall tantamount to perpetuating an illegality, which cannot be permitted. A claim based on equality clause has to be just and legal. 14. . . . . . . . . . It would, thus, suffice to say that an order made in favour of a person in violation of the prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise for any other person to claim parity with the said illegal or irregular order. A judicial forum cannot be used to perpetuate the illegalities.” 7. The learned Advocate for the respondent authorities also invited attention of the Court to the contents of para-7 of affidavit dated 18.09.2006, relevant part of which reads as under:— “7 . . . . . . . . Even assuming that any such regularization was made or allowed, it could not be pleaded as a ground for regularizing the unauthorized occupation or illegal constructions. The petitioners cannot invoke the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or take shelter under it In this behalf, I crave leave to refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kashta Nivarak vs. Indore Development Authority, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1142 . In case one mistake is made or illegality is committed, does not mean that the doctrine of “Equality” as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India enjoins commission of another mistake or illegality. Such “negative equality” is not contemplated or supported by law.” 8. In case one mistake is made or illegality is committed, does not mean that the doctrine of “Equality” as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India enjoins commission of another mistake or illegality. Such “negative equality” is not contemplated or supported by law.” 8. This Court is conscious of the fact that negative equality cannot be claimed and Article 14 cannot be applied in reverse, but then what is prayed for in this petition is not that, as somebody else’s encroachment is regularized, the encroachment of the petitioner may also be regularized. In fact, the petition is filed praying an equal treatment, more particularly in the matter of ‘roof on the head’ of the hutment dwellers. In the present case, if powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are not exercised, a massage will go to the society that if you have money power, you can procure an illegal, undue and immoral favour from an individual officer. But when it comes to get shelter/protection from the Court, principle of non-applicability or Article 14 in reverse will be pleaded and you will be pushed out of the Court throwing you at the mercy of the officers who hear and understand only one language of monitory gains. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court will be failing in its duty if the protection as prayed for is not granted, viz. the respondent authorities are restrained from singling out the hutment dwellers in the matter of eviction from the railway land. It goes without saying that in the event the railway is able to get removed all the encroachments, on the land in question, the respondent railway authorities will be free to take similar and simultaneous actions against the present petitioners also. But otherwise, the respondent authorities are restrained from enforcing the impugned notice against the hutment dwellers - present petitioners. They are restrained from taking possession of the land on which petitioners are existing for last many decades. 10. With these observations, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No costs.