ORDER 1. The applications for permission to file the special leave petitions are allowed. 2. In this batch of cases, wherein, we allowed mentioning and accepted to hear learned counsel on an urgent and emergent basis, the complaint raised is, that the impugned order directs removal of all encroachments, and assumption of possession by the railway authorities, under all circumstances by 09.02.2017. 3. We are informed by the learned counsel representing private parties, besides a representation at the behest of the State of Uttarakhand itself, that the proceedings before the High Court, which were initiated in the nature of public interest litigation, did not even entail a prayer for the removal of encroachments from the alleged railway line, and did not even contain pleadings expressing unauthorised occupants. 4. During the course of hearing, we were inter alia informed, that it is not even clear, whether the land in question indeed belongs to the railways. A counter affidavit filed before the High Court, at the behest of the State Government, contained an assertion, that the land in question is indeed revenue land. It is the contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioners, that there has been no demarcation of the alleged railway land which comprised, according to the directions issued by the High Court, an area of approximately 29 acres. It is also the contention of the learned counsel, that the entire area contained permanent structures including schools, colleges, houses, commercial sites, and places of religion like mosques etc. We are also informed, that the instant occupation at the hands of the petitioners, had been continuing from a date prior to independence, and as such, the possession of the petitioners was for several decades. We were also informed, that approximately 50,000 people are residing in the area, and would be affected by the orders passed by the High Court. It was submitted, that none of the petitioners were issued notices, or were heard before the High Court. 5. Learned counsel for some of the petitioners invited our attention to documents annexed to the pleadings, indicating, that they were in possession on the basis of Governmental leases, executed in their favour. In some other cases, they claimed possession on account of allotment, having been favoured with the same as the highest bidders at an auction. 5. Learned counsel for some of the petitioners invited our attention to documents annexed to the pleadings, indicating, that they were in possession on the basis of Governmental leases, executed in their favour. In some other cases, they claimed possession on account of allotment, having been favoured with the same as the highest bidders at an auction. It is, therefore, the case of some of the petitioners, that their possession was legitimate, legal and authorised. 6. Learned counsel also invited the Court's attention to notices issued to the petitioners, under the Public Premises Act. It was pointed out, that none of the petitioners were in receipt of the notice(s) individually addressed to him/them, and that the notices were addressed to “all unauthorised occupants of railways lands, adjoining to Haldwani Railway Station from Km.78/0 to 83/0 Haldwani”. It is, therefore, their contention, that none of the petitioners were individually served before the eviction order(s) came to be eventually passed against them. It was vehemently asserted, that the eviction orders were passed against the petitioners, without consideration, and merely for giving effect to the impugned orders passed by the High Court. It was also the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that they had sought their appellate remedy against the eviction order(s) passed under the Public Premises Act. However, their appellate remedy was frustrated, by the impugned orders passed by the High Court. It was submitted, that some of the petitioners had approached the High Court, to assail the notices issued under the Public Premises Act, but their matters were being listed before a learned Single Judge of the High Court, who, in any case, was bound by the impugned directions issued by the Division Bench. 7. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel, appearing for different petitioners, in this bunch of cases, we are of the view, that it would not be proper, to take upon ourselves, the consideration of the controversy raised through these petitions. We are of the view, that it would be appropriate to require the petitioners to move the High Court, by filing individual applications seeking recall or modification of the impugned orders. In the above eventuality, the matter shall naturally be examined by a Division Bench of the High Court. 8. We are of the view, that it would be appropriate to require the petitioners to move the High Court, by filing individual applications seeking recall or modification of the impugned orders. In the above eventuality, the matter shall naturally be examined by a Division Bench of the High Court. 8. We are also of the view, that the petitioners who are directly affected by the impugned orders needed to be heard. The course adopted by us, would ensure that an eventual order would be passed, only after the petitioners have been afforded an opportunity of hearing, and their individual contentions have been taken notice of. 9. In the above view of the matter, we permit the petitioners to move appropriate applications before the High Court, as indicated above, on or before 13.02.2017. All such applications, as are filed by the affected parties, shall be taken into consideration by the High Court. We would expect the High Court to dispose of all such applications, within a period of three months, with effect from 13.02.2017. Accordingly, the directions issued by the High Court through the impugned orders, are hereby stayed with immediate effect for a period of three months commencing from 13.02.2017. In case, the applications filed by the petitioners are not disposed of within the time stipulated hereinabove, it shall be open to the petitioners, to move appropriate applications before the High Court, for extension of the interim direction. 10. We may also clarify, that the order dated 10.01.2017 was passed on a review application, filed by the State of Uttarakhand. Be that as it may, the State of Uttarakahand shall be permitted to file an application of the nature indicated above. In the same stream, we consider it just and appropriate, also to clarify, that the appellate proceedings initiated by the concerned occupants, which are allegedly pending before the District Judge, Nainital, shall be dealt with uninfluenced by the observations recorded by the High Court, in the impugned orders. The same position shall entail in the petitions against the show cause notice(s), issued to the private parties under the Public Premises Act, as may be pending before the learned Single Judges, of the High Court. 11. The special leave petitions stand disposed of, in the above terms. 12. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.