Calcutta High Court Directs Fresh Look at Job Claims for Land Losers in Railway PPP Projects

In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of project-affected families, the Calcutta High Court has quashed orders rejecting claims for employment in lieu of land acquired for the Dedicated Freight Corridor project. The judgment underscores that statutory obligations for rehabilitation cannot be sidestepped merely by citing policy shifts or absence of direct jobs.

The Core Dispute: Land Taken, Promises Unfulfilled

Three writ petitioners—Hemanta Kumar Das, Tapas Kumar Ghosh, and Prabir Kumar Ghosh—approached the High Court after the competent authority under the Railways Act turned down their requests for a job in the project or alternative rehabilitation benefits. Their lands had been acquired for the DFCCIL initiative, executed on a Public Private Partnership model. The rejection orders, all dated 28 September 2022, were challenged on the ground that authorities failed to apply the detailed provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Petitioners Argue Statutory Mandate Overrides Policy Circulars

Advocate Ujjal Ray, appearing for the petitioners, contended that Section 2(2)(a) of the 2013 Act expressly extends its application to PPP projects where land ownership remains with the government. He highlighted Chapter V and the Second Schedule, particularly Serial No. 4, which obliges the appropriate government to offer affected families one of three options: a job after suitable training, a one-time payment of ₹5 lakh, or annuity of ₹2,000 per month for 20 years. Ray further pointed to a 2015 Railway Board memo that had adopted the 2013 Act’s entitlement matrix, arguing that a later 2019 circular withdrawing job offers cannot operate retrospectively to defeat accrued rights.

State and Authority Defend Non-Applicability and Lack of Jobs

The State and respondent no. 11 countered that acquisition was governed exclusively by the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008. They relied on Section 20F(6) of the Railways Act to argue that any grievance over compensation must go to an arbitrator. On the employment claim, counsel stressed that the PPP project generates no direct jobs and that internal policy decisions bar fresh appointments. They urged the Court to dismiss the petitions for lack of merit and availability of alternative remedies.

Court’s Reasoning: Rehabilitation is Independent of Compensation Amount

Justice Partha Sarathi Sen meticulously distinguished between determination of compensation (Chapter IV) and rehabilitation & resettlement awards (Chapter V). The Court held that Serial No. 4 of the Second Schedule casts a mandatory duty on the government to ensure one of the three enumerated options is made available. Mere assertion of “no employment generation” does not absolve authorities from considering the lump-sum or annuity alternatives.

> “The appropriate Government shall ensure that the affected families are provided with the following options…”

The judgment also clarified that the 2019 policy withdrawal lacks retrospective effect and cannot override the 2013 Act’s legislative mandate. While acknowledging the availability of arbitration for compensation disputes, the Court found the present challenge squarely concerned with refusal of rehabilitation, not inadequacy of the monetary award.

Pivotal Observations from the Bench

Justice Sen made several pointed remarks that will guide future claims:

> “It thus appears to this court that while enacting Act 30 of 2013, the legislatures have put stress not only on fair compensation but also in case of transparency in rehabilitation and resettlement on account of land acquisition.”

> “This Court has meticulously gone through the provision of serial no. 4 of the second schedule of Act 30 of 2013 which clearly indicates the legislative mandate that the appropriate government shall ensure the affected families are provided with the three options…”

> “In view of such, this Court has got no hesitation in mind that the orders under challenge dated 28.09.2022… are vitiated for non-consideration of the relevant provisions of law and the same is perverse.”

Final Orders and Forward Path

Allowing all three writ petitions, the Court set aside the impugned rejection orders and directed the competent authority to re-examine the petitioners’ claims afresh within 45 working days. The authority must conduct a thorough inquiry into employment possibilities and explicitly consider the statutory alternatives of lump-sum payment or annuity if direct jobs are unavailable. Both petitioners and the project authority must be heard before passing reasoned orders.

The ruling is expected to prompt similar claims across ongoing railway and infrastructure projects executed through PPP models, reinforcing that land acquisition carries not just monetary compensation but also enforceable rehabilitation rights.