Calcutta HC Quashes DFCCIL’s Job Denial Orders | Railways Must Follow Section 31 And Schedule II Of Land Acquisition Act | Land Losers Entitled To Employment Or Compensation Under PPP Project
Safiya Malik
The High Court at Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that the respondent authority's decision denying rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements to land-losers was legally unsustainable. The Court stated that the refusal to provide benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) was vitiated due to non-consideration of the statutory provisions.
In its decision, the Court quashed the impugned orders passed by the respondent authority and directed a fresh consideration of the petitioners' entitlement under Section 31 read with Serial No. 4 of the Second Schedule of Act 30 of 2013. The Court further mandated a reasoned decision after granting the petitioners and respondent authorities an opportunity of hearing, to be completed within forty-five working days from communication of the judgment.
The three writ petitions were filed by Hemanta Kumar Das, Tapas Kumar Ghosh, and Prabir Kumar Ghosh against the Union of India and others, challenging the rejection of their claims for employment or other entitlements in lieu of land acquired for a project.
The acquisition concerned land for the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) project, executed under a Public Private Partnership (PPP) model. The petitioners contended that their land was acquired under the Railways Act, 1989, as amended by the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008, but that the compensation and resettlement must adhere to the provisions of Act 30 of 2013.
The orders impugned—dated 28.09.2022—were passed by the respondent no. 2/competent authority, rejecting the petitioners' claims for employment or alternative benefits as stipulated in Act 30 of 2013. The petitioners sought quashing of these orders.
Mr. Ujjal Ray, representing the petitioners, argued that the acquisition process, although initiated under the Railways Act, must adhere to the compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement framework of Act 30 of 2013 due to the nature of the project and the express statutory application under Section 2(2)(a) of Act 30 of 2013.
Attention was drawn to the respondent no. 11's own submissions in a supplementary affidavit dated 20.11.2023, which acknowledged that the declaration under Section 20E(1) of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008 was published on 14.07.2016. Mr. Ray argued that such acquisition falls under the ambit of Act 30 of 2013.
He cited Chapters IV and V of the Act, stating that compensation and resettlement are two distinct statutory mandates. He also pointed to the entitlement matrix issued by the Ministry of Railways on 23.05.2015, which had adopted the Second Schedule of Act 30 of 2013.
Moreover, the petitioners contested the relevance of a subsequent Railway Board memo dated 11.11.2019, which purportedly discontinued employment offers for land-losers. Mr. Ray argued that such a memo lacks retrospective effect and cannot override statutory entitlements.
Mr. Chadi Charan De, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State, contended that the acquisition was completed per the Railways Act, 1989, and compensation was determined under Section 20F of the Act. He cited Section 20F(6), arguing that disputes regarding compensation must be addressed through arbitration.
Ms. Rini Bhattacharyya, appearing for respondent no. 11, supported this position and further submitted that the DFCCIL project does not generate employment, and hence, no jobs could be offered. She relied on a supplementary affidavit dated 11.06.2024, stating the PPP nature of the project as a constraint.
However, the Court scrutinised these contentions against the statutory framework of Act 30 of 2013.
The Court recorded, "On perusal of Section 2(2) of the Act 30 of 2013, it reveals that Act 30 of 2013 applies in case of acquisition of land for Public Private Partnership (PPP) project."
It held that the applicability of Act 30 of 2013 was unequivocal, noting, "This court has no hesitation to hold for the purpose of determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, the provision of Act 30 of 2013 is applicable."
The Court quoted Section 31 and Serial No. 4 of the Second Schedule, stating, "The appropriate Government shall ensure that the affected families are provided with the following options…" including employment, one-time payment, or annuity.
On the memo dated 11.11.2019, the Court stated, "This court is of considered view that such memo dated 11.11.2019 is no way helpful…since it is the statutory mandate of Act 30 of 2013 to take steps for rehabilitation and resettlement."
Regarding the denial of employment on the ground that the project does not generate jobs, the Court observed, "In the event, relief (a) cannot be granted, the affected families are to be provided with the options as mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c)…"
Criticising the respondent authority’s order dated 28.09.2022, the Court stated, "The respondent no. 2/authority had failed to visualize the true spirit of Section 31 of Act 30 of 2013 read with the provision of serial no. 4 of the second schedule."
Further, the Court clarified the scope of the writ petition, stating, "The subject matter of the instant writ petition is quite different…not on account of inadequacy of compensation but on account of refusal…to rehabilitate and resettle."
It stated the objective of Act 30 of 2013, stating, "The legislatures have put stress not only on fair compensation but also in case of transparency in rehabilitation and resettlement."
Rejecting arguments under Section 20F(6) of the Railways Act, the Court held, "Such submissions…are not acceptable…since the writ petitioner has approached…not an account of inadequacy of compensation but…refusal…to rehabilitate and resettle."
The Court allowed the writ petitions and issued specific directions for fresh consideration of the petitioners’ entitlements.
"Accordingly, the instant writ petitions are hereby allowed."
"Consequently, the orders dated 28.09.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside."
"The respondent no. 2/authority is directed to consider the entitlement of the writ petitioners afresh in terms of the provision of Section 31 read with serial no. 4 of the 2nd schedule of the Act 30 of 2013."
"The authority shall do so after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and/or his/their authorized representative(s) as well as the respondent no. 11 and/or its authorized representative."
"The reasoned orders shall be passed and communicated to the writ petitioners and the respondent no. 11 within 45 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this judgment."
"The respondent no. 2/authority is directed to act on the server copy of this judgment."
"Since before this Court respondent no. 11 has specifically made out a case regarding non-generation of any employment… the respondent no. 2/authority is directed to make a thorough enquiry and assign his reason in his reasoned orders while considering the entitlement/disentitlement of the writ petitioner."
"The time limit as fixed by this Court is mandatory and peremptory."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ujjal Ray, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Chadi Charan De, Additional Government Pleader; Mr. Anirban Sarkar; Mr. Soumitra Bandyapadhyay; Mr. Subhasish Bandyapadhyay; Ms. Rini Bhattacharyya, Advocate
Case Title: Hemanta Kumar Das & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 4846 of 2023, WPA 4985 of 2023, WPA 4986 of 2023
Bench: Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
