1. The petitioners by way of this writ petition have challenged the notice directing for dispossession.

2. This Court vide order dated 11.4.2018 had restrained the railway authorities from making demolition with regard to the residential houses of the petitioners and allow the petitioners to reside in their house.

3. The reply has been filed by the railways and a preliminary objection has been raised. It is submitted that the benefit which the petitioners are claiming with regard to the rehabilitation is part of compensation for which the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 20F(6) of the Railways Act, 1989. It is also stated that the petitioners have approached the Arbitrator by filing applications relating to the monetary compensation. Once such an application has been moved, the Arbitrator can also examine the matter relating to rehabilitation aspect.

4. On merits, respondents have submitted that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act of 2013’) would not be applicable with regard to land acquisition under the Railways Act, 1989 in view of the provisions of Section 105. It is, therefore, submitted that the provisions of the Act could not have been applied for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioners and the relevant provisions which would apply for the purpose would fall in terms of Section 20 Chapter IV(A) of various sections therein.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, appearing for the respondent-railway submits that under Section 20F(6) there is a provisions of determination of amount of compensation and the power to take possession is exercised as per Section 20(I) of the Act of 1989. Further it is submitted that the railways in terms of Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 has adopted entitlement matrix in accordance with the Act of 2013 whereby as per entitlement matrix compensation for land and revenue assets fall to man and building as well as resettlement and rehabilitation assistance for project affected people has been adopted. It is submitted that the land or area which is being sought to be acquired from the properties of the petitioners has been determined by the SDO, Ajmer and a table has been mentioned in the reply pointing out the acquired area of property and the percentage of the area acquired. Learned Counsel submits that as per the said table only part area of the property is being acquired and the remaining area shall remain with the petitioners and they can continue to reside there as per their will. In the circumstances, authority had taken decision for not granting any compensation of rehabilitation and resettlement assistance to the petitioners on the ground that the same is not relatable to their livelihood.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Act of 2013 could not have been given a go bye once its first Schedule and Second Schedule have been adopted by the respondents as per the entitlement matrix adopted by the railways. It is submitted that before providing rehabilitation and resettlement the petitioners cannot be dispossessed. The question regarding compensation has already been raised before the Arbitrator. However, the Arbitrator who has been appointed in terms of Section 20F(6), would not be able to decide question regarding rehabilitation and resettlement. It is thus not an alternative, efficacious remedy available to the petitioners. On merits also, the petitioners submit that the claim of the petitioners regarding resettlement and rehabilitation was rejected only on the ground that the acquisition of the property would not affect the livelihood of the land owners and their families. It is his submission that such a decision was illegal and unjustified. Once the residential houses of the petitioners itse