Chattisgarh High Court
Union Of India vs Vijay Jaiswal on 23 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 5804 of 2022
1. Union of India Through The General Manager, Sec Railway, Bilaspur
Zone, Headquarters Office, Bilaspur 495004 Chhattisgarh.
2. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur
Division, DMR'S Office, Bilaspur 495004
3. The Chief Project Manager, Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Project Office,
Block No. 5, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur- 492013
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Jaiswal S/o Shri Gaya Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 43 Years
Unemployed, R/o Ward No. 8, Gourella, Tehsil - Pendra Road, District
Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General
For Respondent : None
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
23/09/2022
Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General,
appearing for the petitioners.
2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 08.04.2022
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench,
Circuit Court Sittings, Bilaspur, (for short, the CAT) in Original Application
No. 203/00843/ 2021 (for short, the OA).
3. A notification dated 02.11.2017 was issued by the petitioners herein
to acquire agricultural land of village Patarkoni and village Madna of
Pendra Road for a Railway Project. Pursuant thereto, the land of the
applicant before the OA, bearing Khasra No. 60/1 (area 0.101 hectare) was
acquired and an award also came to be passed on 07.09.2018 by the Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue) for payment of compensation. The land having
been acquired, the applicant made an application for appointment in the
prescribed format, in terms of the policy under RBE No. 99/2010 dated
16.07.2010, which provided for employment assistance to one of the family
members whose land is acquired.
4. Though the applicant was called for a screening test on 17.12.2019,
subsequently, by letter dated 20.10.2020, candidature of the applicant was
cancelled on the ground that under the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the Act of 2013), the applicant is entitled
to compensation amount only.
5. Challenging the said rejection order dated 20.10.2020, the OA came
to be filed.
6. Before the CAT, the petitioners had placed reliance on a policy under
RBE No. 193/2019, dated 11.11.2019 issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), on the subject of revision of policy
regarding compensation of land-losers affected by acquisition for Railway
projects, whereby amongst others, the earlier policy offering appointment
to the land-losers was withdrawn.
7. The CAT held that the policy dated 11.11.2019 would be applicable
only to those land-losers whose land was acquired after the issuance of
RBE No. 193/2019 and accordingly, quashed the order dated 20.10.2020
and directed reconsideration of the case of the applicant for employment
assistance within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order.
8. Mr. Mishra submits that the learned CAT was in error in coming to the
conclusion that the policy dated 11.11.2019 would be applicable only to
those persons whose land is acquired after issuance of the said policy. It is
submitted by him that the policy dated 16.07.2010 was issued while land
was acquired under Railways Act, 1989 and with the coming into the force
of the Act of 2013, there is a change in the entire scheme of acquisition of
land and therefore, the policy dated 16.07.2010 would not be applicable.
9. We have considered the submissions of Mr. Mishra and have
perused the materials on record.
10. It is not in dispute that there was in existence a policy dated
16.07.2010 providing employment assistance to one of the family members
whose land is acquired. It will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant
extract of the policy dated 11.11.2019 for better appreciation. The same
reads as under:
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAILWAY BOARD)
RBE No. 193/2019
No. E(NG)II/2010/RC-5/1, New Delhi, dated 11.11.2019
To
The General Manager,
All Zonal Railways/Production Units
(As per standard mailing list)
Sub: Revision of policy regarding compensation of Land losers
affected by land acquisition of Railway projects.
Ref: (i) RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.201008
(ii) RBE No. 120/2010 dated 13.08.2010
(iii) Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)II/2010/RC/5/1 dated
28.09.2010
1. On notification of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act 2013 (Removal of Difficulties) Order 2015 dated
28.08.2015, provision of RFCTLARR Act 2013 related to
determination of compensation in accordance with the First,
Second and Third Schedules of the RFCTLARR Act 2013 have
become applicable to all cases of land acquisition under the
Railways Act 1989 also. This inter alia means that, irrespective of
whether land acquisition for Railway projects is done through
Railways Act 1989 after declaring it as a Special Railway Project
or through RFCTLARR Act 2013 through State Government,
determination of compensation shall be in accordance with the
First, Second and Third Schedules of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
2. The modalities for implementation of Serial No. 4 of the Second
schedule of the RFCTLARR Act 2013 were examined by Ministry
of Railways and it has been decided that:
i. Ministry of Railways' earlier policy of offering appointment in
Railways to affected land-losers issued vide references above is
withdrawn and circulars issued in this regard vide reference above
stands superseded.
ii. Lump sum payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs to be provided to affected
families who were primarily dependent on acquired land for
livelihood, i.e. cases where their livelihood is affected by such
acquisition or whether entire land-holding of the affected family
have been acquired.
3. Before considering grant of any relief under Second Schedule,
however, the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) or
Collector should unequivocally certify that the affected family has
been displaced and dislocated to another area or their entire land
holding has been acquired. Further, in case of joint ownership of a
plot of land, lump sum payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs should be shared
between joint owners of plot in same ratio in which land value is to
be shared.
4. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned authorities
dealing with the acquisition of land and ensure that all
determination of compensation for acquisition of land under the
Railway Act 1989 are in consonance with the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013.
5. This policy shall be effective from the date of issue of this letter.
6. This issues with the concurrence of Finance and approval of
the Competent Authority.
Sd/- Illegible Sd/- Illegible
(Chandra Shekhar) (M.M.Rai)
Jt. Director Land & Amenities Jt. Director Estt (N) II
Railway Board Railway Board"
11. A perusal of the said policy would go to show that irrespective of
whether the land acquisition for railway projects was done through the
Railways Act, 1989 after declaring it as Special Railway Project or through
State Governments, determination of compensation shall be made in
accordance with the First, Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013
and accordingly, the policy of offering appointment in Railways to affected
land losers was withdrawn and circulars issued in that regard were
superseded.
12. Clause 5 of the policy, however, makes it amply clear that the new
policy shall be effective from the date of the issue of the letter. Therefore,
there is no manner of doubt that the earlier policy which was withdrawn
continued to remain in force till issuance of the notification dated
11.11.2019.
13. In view of the above discussion, the view taken by the CAT cannot be
faulted with. Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition and the same is
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit
