JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties has raised any complaint regarding audio and visual quality. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5773 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed, declining to interfere with the notice dated 08.03.2017 issued to the petitioners, intimating them that the shops allotted by the railway are urgently required to be submitted to Head Quarters/GRC for onward transmission to the Railway Board, as the consent regarding demolition of the shops is urgently required to be given within three days from the date of receipt of the letters issued to the petitioners. Alternatively, the petitioners prayed for their rehabilitation and to allot them vacant railway land before their eviction. 3. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, which requires to be enumerated, reads hereunder as : The writ petitioners/predecessors were allotted plots for commercial purposes by the railway authorities situated near Jugsalai Railway Level Crossing, P.O. and P.S. Jugsalai, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. The petitioners constructed shops upon the said land and were carrying on their business on the monthly rent paid to the railway authorities and to that effect rent receipts had also been issued. In the meantime, the Divisional Engineer (East), South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur issued notices dated 08.03.2017 to the petitioners for demolition of their shops so as to commence construction work of proposed Railway Over Bridge (U shape) directing them to submit their consent within three days from the date of receipt of the said notices. The petitioners submitted their reply to the said notices stating that they have constructed shops on the allotted plots by their own fund and have also paid rent thereof, as such, the demolition of the said shops without replacing/rehabilitating them and without making adequate compensation, would cause irreparable losses and injury to the petitioners. The respondents sat ideal even in spite of repeated representations filed by the petitioners, which led the petitioners to approach this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents sat ideal even in spite of repeated representations filed by the petitioners, which led the petitioners to approach this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners agitated the issue before the writ Court for consideration about the sketch map of the proposed plan for execution of the Railway Over Bridge besides the allotted plots near Jugsalai Level Crossing, stating therein that if the proposed Railway Over Bridge is constructed based on the sketch map, none of the allotted plots will be affected and the purpose of construction of Railway Over Bridge will be achieved without disturbing the business structures of the petitioners. The respondent-Railway put its appearance before the writ Court on being called upon, raising the stand inter alia that petitioners have no right to stay over the said plot as the railway requires the same for construction of Railway Over Bridge for the benefit of the public at large. It was further submitted that the petitioners have already been given sufficient time to remove the structures so that the work could be commenced. The writ Court after considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and considering the condition of license agreement as contained under paragraph-5, has declined to interfere with the impugned notices. However, with the observation by reserving liberty to the petitioners to move before the railway authority for consideration of their cases for allotment of alternative plots, directed the railway authority to deal with the said grievance keeping in view all the relevant rules/circulars/policies of the railway, which is the subject matter of the intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners has reiterated the ground which was raised before the writ Court, however, in addition to the same, the issue of rehabilitation has been given emphasis. He has referred to an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.03.2019, whereby and whereunder in pursuant to the said order liberty was granted to file a supplementary affidavit to bring on record rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the State Government. He has referred to an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.03.2019, whereby and whereunder in pursuant to the said order liberty was granted to file a supplementary affidavit to bring on record rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the State Government. In pursuant thereto, rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the State Government was filed and further vide order dated 18.11.2019 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court adjourned the matter by giving time to the State to file affidavit, if any, with respect to the claim of the writ petitioners in terms of the rehabilitation and resettlement policy issued by the State of Jharkhand. It has been submitted that the respondent-Railway has filed an affidavit on merit of the issues and defended the notices issued against the writ petitioners for vacation of their shops for the purpose of construction of Railway Over Bridge. It has been contended that in pursuant to the condition of license, the writ petitioners have got no right to remain in possession of the plot since it is the property of the railway which is required for the respondents for construction of Railway Over Bridge. 5. The another affidavit was filed by the railway authorities answering the issues about the rehabilitation of the writ petitioners, which has been denied by taking stand that the appellants since are not the licensee rather they are unauthorized occupants over the railway land and further there is no scheme or policy, hence they cannot be provided any alternative arrangement. It has further been stated that due to illegal occupation by the writ petitioners, much delay has been caused in construction of the Railway Over Bridge, in consequence thereof, the public at large is suffering. So far as the reliance put by the writ petitioners upon the rehabilitation policy of the State of Jharkhand, it has been stated that the power of rehabilitation and resettlement solely depend upon the policy of the State Government and as such, the railway authority has no concern with the rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the State Government. 6. The State has also filed an affidavit pertaining to the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement of the writ petitioners, wherein it has been stated that there is no order or proposal for the State to rehabilitate the petitioners who have been dispossessed from the railways. 7. 6. The State has also filed an affidavit pertaining to the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement of the writ petitioners, wherein it has been stated that there is no order or proposal for the State to rehabilitate the petitioners who have been dispossessed from the railways. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record as also the finding recorded in the impugned order, this Court, deem it fit and proper to refer certain relevant facts which is important for adjudication of the lis, which reads hereunder as: The admitted position is that the railway authorities had allotted a piece of land to each of the petitioners for commercial purposes situated near Jugsalai Railway Level Crossing in the district of East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on monthly licence fee to be paid by the writ petitioners-appellants in individual capacity. The writ petitioners had also entered into a lease agreement. The writ petitioners were continuing to hold possession of the shops constructed over the said land, but the railway authority issued notices to the writ petitioners on 08.03.2017 asking them to hand over the vacant possession of the land as per the decision of the railway authorities since the land in question is required for the purpose of construction of the Railway Over Bridge. The writ petitioners approached to this Court by filing writ petition, assailing the aforesaid notices. The writ Court after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and considering the terms of license, has declined to interfere with the impugned notices, against which the present appeal has been filed. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, the status of the writ petitioners whereof license in terms of an agreement which was initially for a period of three years which has lapsed, being not renewed further. One of the conditions of the said agreement is that the appellants were only allowed to construct temporary structures over the said land but non-complying the same they made pucca construction over the said land. There is no dispute about the settled position of law that if a contract is entered in between the parties, the condition contained therein will bind them. There is no dispute about the settled position of law that if a contract is entered in between the parties, the condition contained therein will bind them. Admittedly, as per the condition of the agreement, the writ petitioners were licensee on monthly payment of the license fee, initially for a period of three years subject to condition of renewal, but as per the materials available on record the contract was never renewed and as such after expiry of three years, the status of the writ petitioners as of the licensee has lost its efficacy. Therefore, from the date of completion of the period of three years, the status of the writ petitioners will be said to be of unauthorized occupant of the said premises. It is equally admitted herein that the land since belongs to the railway and as such as per decision taken by the railway authorities at the competent level, the land in question was required for the purpose of construction of the Railway Over Bridge, which led the railway authorities to issue notice to the writ petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the said land. The writ Court has considered the condition of license, more particularly condition no.15 of the license agreement, which contains the condition, which reads hereunder as: “The Administration shall at any time and from time to time be at liberty in the absolute discretion to suspend temporarily and/or terminate this agreement and all of the privileges hereby granted upon the expiration of 01(one) Month’s Notice in writing of his intention, so to do being left at or sent by registered post to the registered Office/address of the licensee and notwithstanding that the licensee have executed any work of a permanent or temporary character an incurred expenses in the execution hereof the licensee shall not be entitled to any damage or compensation by reason of such termination or suspension.” The writ petitioners-appellants have not disputed the said part of the agreement. The said condition binds the parties, and if notices have been issued in terms of the condition as stipulated under para-15 of the agreement, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. The said condition binds the parties, and if notices have been issued in terms of the condition as stipulated under para-15 of the agreement, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge has considered the fact that the land in question is the property of the railway, upon which the railway Over Bridge is to be constructed and as such, the vacant possession of the land is required and in order to achieve the said purpose if the notices have been issued for vacation of the land in question, the same requires no interference. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners about rehabilitation of the writ petitioners is concerned, for which reliance has been placed upon the rehabilitation policy issued by the State of Jharkhand, we have gone through the rehabilitation policy as has been brought by way of supplementary affidavit filed by the writ petitioners on 15.03.2019. Admittedly, the aforesaid rehabilitation policy was published in the year 2008 i.e. “Jharkhand Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2008.” We have gone through the preamble of the said policy and found therefrom that the purpose of the aforesaid policy is to rehabilitate the tribals or the local people fought for a separate State, so their interest may be protected in order to consider the cases of such displaced persons, whose lands have been acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the establishment of dams, mines etc. Thus, it is evident that the Jharkhand Rehabilitation Policy is solely made for the local people of the Jharkhand, who has suffered due to acquisition of the land as also for whom who has suffered in course of fighting for the separate State. Hence it is evident that the aforesaid rehabilitation policy does not contain any purpose to rehabilitate the persons like the writ petitioners who are licensee of the railways. Further, the aforesaid relief cannot be granted in pursuant to the fact that the writ petitioners although have made a prayer for rehabilitating them but such prayer has been made for issuing a direction upon the railways and not upon the State of Jharkhand. 8. Further, the aforesaid relief cannot be granted in pursuant to the fact that the writ petitioners although have made a prayer for rehabilitating them but such prayer has been made for issuing a direction upon the railways and not upon the State of Jharkhand. 8. In view of absence of specific relief sought by the writ petitioners, the question at this juncture would be, as to whether writ petition can be allowed to mend its prayer which was not prayed before the writ Court? The answer to this, being a Court of intra-court appeal, no such indulgence can be granted if no such relief has been sought for before the writ Court as because the intra-court appeal is the continuation of the proceeding of the writ Court, wherein the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised. Further, such relief cannot be granted by issuing a direction upon the State of Jharkhand since no representation has been filed before the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand and it is settled that for the purpose of seeking a writ of mandamus, a demand is to be made before the competent authority. Furthermore, even before the writ Court the State of Jharkhand has been impleaded as party without any competent authority at the State level, however, the Deputy Commissioner of the district has been impleaded. It requires to clarify that the Deputy Commissioner of the district cannot be said to be a competent authority to take a decision with respect to rehabilitation policy rather the said decision is to be taken at the State level. 9. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid reasons, is of the view that the writ petitioners-appellants have not been able to make out a case for issuance of direction upon the State of Jharkhand pertaining to rehabilitation. So far as direction upon the railway for rehabilitation is concerned, even upon the railway, no direction can be given after expiry of the license and once the license has lost its force, they cannot come forward and insist for rehabilitation by seeking a direction from the writ Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the instant appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.