Union Of India vs Devi Singh Chandrawanshi
2022 Latest Caselaw 6062 Chatt

                                      1


                                                                      NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      Writ Petition (S) No. 6158 of 2022


1.      Union Of India Through The General Manager, South East Central
        Railway Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 492004
2.      The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction), South East Central
        Railway, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001
3.      The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction), South East Central
        Railway, District Nagpur Maharashtra 440001
4.      Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South East Central Railway,
        Nainpur, District Mandla Madhya Pradesh 306104
                                                             ---- Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.      Devi Singh Chandrawanshi S/o Panna Lal Chandrawanshi Aged
        About 28 Years Occupation Unemplyed, R/o Village Bhoma Tola,
        Tehsil Seoni And District Seoni Madhya Pradesh 480661
2.      Collector Seoni, District Seoni Madhya Pradesh 480661, District :
        Seoni, Madhya Pradesh
3.      Sub Divisional Officer, (R), Seoni, District Seoni Madhya Pradesh
        480661, District : Seoni, Madhya Pradesh
                                                           ---- Respondents

(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

Order on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

28/09/2022

Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General,

appearing for the petitioners.

2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 21.04.2022

passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench,

Circuit Court Sittings, Bilaspur, (for short, the CAT) in Original Application

No. 200/00341/2022 (for short, the OA).

3. A notification dated 28.12.2017 was issued by the petitioners herein

to acquire agricultural land of village Bhoma Tola Ph No. 76 for a Railway

Project. Pursuant thereto, the land of the applicant before the OA, bearing

Khasra No. 413/1 was acquired and an award also came to be passed on

18.02.2019 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. By letter dated 08.04.2022, 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 08.04.2022, 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 08.04.2022

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 present petition is covered by a judgment

and order dated 23.09.2022 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 5804 of 2022

(Union of India v. Vijay Jaiswal), and therefore, the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

9. In Vijay Jaiswal (supra), this Court had observed as follows:

"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."

10. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

                       Sd/-                                        Sd/-
               (Arup Kumar Goswami)                       (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
                   CHIEF JUSTICE                                JUDGE



Brijmohan