Union Of India vs Shubham Sandel
2022 Latest Caselaw 4492 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                           NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                WPS No. 4882 of 2022
     1.   Union of India Through The General Manager, South East Central
          Railway, Bilapur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 495004
     2.   The Divisional Railway Manager South Eastern Central Railway,
          Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin 495004
     3.   The Senior Divisional Personal Officer South East Central Railway,
          Bilaspur, Dsitrict - Bilaspur - 495004
     4.   The Chief Administrative Officer (Const.) Personal Section, South
          East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) - 495001
     5.   The Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) South East Central Railway,
          Chhindwada, District - Chhindwada (Mp) - 481001
     6.   The Executive Engineer (Const.) South East Central Railway,
          Chhindwada, District - Chhindwada (Mp) - 481001
     7.   The Divisional Personal Officer Officer Of The Sr. Divisional
          Personal Officer, South East Central Railway
                                                                  ---- Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.        Shubham Sandel S/o Shri Sadashiv Sandel Aged About 26 Years
          R/o Priyadarshini Colony, Berdi Road, Gujarkhedi, Tehsil Saunshar,
          District - Chhindwada (M.P) - 481001
2.        The Land Acquisition Officer Saunshar Chhindwada, District
          Chhindwada (MP) - 481001
                                                               ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

14.07.2022

Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for

the petitioners.

2. This petition is presented against an order dated 07.04.2022 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at

Bilaspur (for short, 'CAT') in Original Application No.203/00376/2022, by

which the CAT directed the appellants to consider the case of the applicant

before the CAT for appointment within a period of three months.

3. The applicant before the CAT is grandson of ancestors, whose lands

were acquired for the purpose of diversion of broad-gauge railway route

from Nagpur to Chhindwada. The appellants had a policy for giving

appointment to sole owner of land or son/daughter/husband/wife of the sole

owner, whose land or a portion thereof was acquired for the project.

4. Mr. Mishra submits that this petition is squarely covered by an order of

this Court dated 08.04.2022 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.2480 of 2022 and

accordingly, he submits that this writ petition may be disposed of in the light

of the said order.

5. In the order dated 08.04.2022 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.2480 of

2022, at paragraphs-3 to 6, it was observed as follows :

"3. The applicants before the CAT are grandsons of

ancestors, whose lands were acquired for the

purpose of extension of broad-gauge railway lines

from Nagpur to Chhindwada. The appellants had a

policy for giving appointment to sole owner of land

or son/daughter/husband/wife of the sole owner,

whose land or a portion thereof was acquired for the

project.

4. The learned CAT relied on its earlier judgment in

case of Yashvant Kumar v. Union of India (Original

Application No.203/929/2014), decided on

28.11.2017, which was affirmed by the Division

Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.1349 of

2018 (South East Central Railway and Others v.

Yashvant and Others), decided on 03.04.2018, and

accordingly, issued the directions as noted

hereinabove.

5. It is pointed by Mr. Mishra that against the

judgment of this Court dated 03.04.2018 passed in

Writ Petition (S) No.1349 of 2018, a Special Leave

Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, which is pending consideration.

6. As the Division Bench of this Court in Writ

Petition (S) No.1349 of 2018 had held that a

grandson was entitled to be appointed on

rehabilitation ground due to extension of railway

route, we see no good ground to interfere with the

order of the learned CAT."

6. In view of the above submission of Mr. Mishra and in view of the order

dated 08.04.2022 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.2480 of 2022, the writ

petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.

                         Sd/-                                        Sd/-
               (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                     Chief Justice                                  Judge

Anu