Union Of India vs Kakarla Hussainappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 3526 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3526 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2022

Telangana High Court

Union Of India vs Kakarla Hussainappa on 7 July, 2022

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili, N.V.Shravan Kumar

      HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                                                   AND
           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                           Writ Petition. No. 26737 of 2022


Order: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


         This Writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Order passed

in O.A.No.020/00934/2019 dated 09.02.2022 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, (for short,

the Tribunal), at Hyderabad.


2.       Heard Sri.T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for Central Government.


3.       It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that respondent Nos.1 and 2 lands were acquired by the

Special Deputy Collector, Kadapa and Land Acquisition

proceedings were also initiated. After acquiring the land the

Irrigation Department has handed over the land to the

Applicants for reallocating the railway line as the existing

railway line were getting submerged in Gantikota Reservoir.

4. The grievance of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was that

their lands were acquired and they were seeking employment ::2::

with the Applicants in terms of Railway Board Policy vide RBE

No.99/2010 dated 16.07.2010.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

the said Policy is not applicable in respect of respondent Nos. 1

and 2 as it would come into operation if the Applicants

acquired the land for railway purpose. Admittedly in the

instance case no Land Acquisition proceeding were initiated by

the Applicants and Irrigation officials of the State Government

have initiated the Land Acquisition proceeding in order to

reallocate the railway line as the existing railway line were

getting submerged in Gantikota Reservoir.

6. Aggrieved by the inaction of Applicants in not providing

employment to respondent No.2, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed

O.A.No.020/00934/2019 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal

by order dated 09.02.2022 was pleased to allow the OA and

directed the Applicants to consider the case of the respondents

for providing employment under land losers quota as per the

Railway Board Policy dated 16.07.2010.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contented that the

Tribunal erred in directing the Applicants to consider the case ::3::

of respondent No.2 for providing employment in terms of

Railway Board Policy dated 16.07.2010 without appreciating

the present case. Therefore, appropriate order may be passed

by setting aside the Order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the

Tribunal in OA No.020/00934/2019.

8. This Court having carefully examine the record and after

hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners is of

the considered view that the Tribunal has given cognizant

reason while allowing the OA filed by the respondent Nos. 1

and 2 and justified in directing the Applicants to consider the

case of respondent No.2 for providing employment in terms of

Railway Board Policy dated 16.07.2010 in the following

manner:-

"In view of the circumstance stated, we allow the OA and direct the respondents to consider providing employment to the 2nd applicant under land losers quota as per the Railway Board Policy Vide RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010, providing he is otherwise eligible. Suitable age relaxation be granted by deleting the period lapsed from the date of filing the OA till its disposal, from the age criteria fixed. The time period allowed to implement the judgment is 3 months from the date of receipt of this order."

9. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the land was

ultimately acquired for the benefit of railways, thought the

Land Acquisition proceeding was initiated by the Irrigation ::4::

Department and perusal of the Railway Board Policy, makes it

clear that whenever land is acquired by the Railway

Department for the benefit of railways, the Railway

Department have taken policy decision of providing

employment to such land looser. Admittedly in the instance

case respondent Nos. 1 and 2 land were acquired in 2008 and

they are entitle for the benefit of Railway Board Policy dated

16.07.2010.

10. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in allowing OA and this