The main legal point established in the judgment is that entitlement to benefits under the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 is contingent upon the land being acquired under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989.

1. This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 31 October 2017, passed by the Competent Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Kanpur Nagar, by which the representations dated 18 May 2017 and 3 May 2017 filed by the petitioners have been rejected holding that they are only entitled to receive damages for the structure standing on the land. In fact notices have also been issued by the Competent Officer to the petitioners requiring them to appear in his office for obtaining damages within three months.

2. It transpires that a large tract of land was sought to be acquired by the Railways for which a notification under Section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 10 February 2009. This was followed by a declaration made under Section 20-E of the Act on 9 September 2009. The dispute in the present petition is in regard to Plot No. 805 situated in Mauja Rampur Bhimsen. This plot is not included in the declaration.

3. The claim of the petitioners that the application under the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 under Section 20 (O) of the Act has been rejected for the reason that the land belonging to the petitioners had not been acquired by the Central Government under the provisions of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order impugned is liable to be set aside as the aforesaid policy will be applicable in the present case.

5. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, contended that since the land belonging to the petitioners had not been acquired under the provisions of the Act, they would not be entitled to any benefit under Section 20(O) of the Act.

6. It transpires on a perusal of the impugned order that the plot No. 805 had been resumed by the State Government under the provisions of Section 117(6) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and that the petitioners have no title over the land.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to substantiate that the petitioners have any title over that land. All that has been submitted is that the structures are standing on the land and, therefore, the provisions of Section 20(O) of the Act would apply.

8. This submission is without any basis. As noted above, Section 20(O) of the Act would apply only if the land is acquired under the Act and not otherwise.

9. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would apply cannot also be accepted since the acquisition was made under the provisions of Railways Act and in any case, the plot of the petitioners has not even been acquired under the provisions of the Act.

10. The petitioners, at best, would be entitled to damages of the structures standing on the land. The Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) has in fact determined the damages and has asked the petitioners to receive the payment.

11. There is, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order which may call for any interference by this Court.