Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2332

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Budhia Muduli – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA

Advocates:
For the applicant: Mr. S.S.Das, Counsel
For the respondents: Dr. C.R.Mishra, Counsel

Son of compensation-receiving co-owner qualifies as son of land loser for railway rehabilitation employment despite lack of mutation.

Headnote:(A) Railway Board Notification dated 16.07.2010 (RBE No. 99/2010) - Para 1(i): "The applicant shall be a person (sole owner of land or son/daughter/husband/wife of the sole owner) whose land or a portion thereof has been acquired for the project." - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 - S.3(m): "family includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children, minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him" - Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for land losers - Applicant grandson of original purchaser whose land acquired for Khurda Road Balangir New BG Rail Link Project - Compensation paid to father as co-owner/legal heir - Father deemed land loser - Applicant as son of land loser entitled to consideration - Lack of mutation does not disentitle benefits - Policy applicable to pre-2010 acquisitions per High Court ruling in Krushna Chandra Nayak (WP

(C) No. 5102/2013) upheld by Supreme Court - Subsequent rejections quashed as non-application of mind, discriminatory, violative of equality - Doctrine of parity mandates similar treatment. (Paras 2-12)

(B) Administrative Law - Compliance with judicial orders - Resurrection of quashed grounds in fresh rejection order illegal - Railways cannot reinterpret Tribunal findings - Compensation payment to legal heirs establishes ownership for rehabilitation purposes. (Paras 8-11)

Facts of the case:
Land purchased by applicant's grandfather in 1968, acquired in 2002 for railway project, compensation paid to father as co-owner. Applicant sought rehabilitation appointment under 2010 policy, rejected twice on ground of being grandson, not son of land loser. Prior OA directions for reconsideration ignored.

Findings of Court:
Rejection orders quashed; applicant entitled to rehabilitation employment as son of land loser/co-owner; direct issuance of appointment order within 90 days.

Issues: Eligibility of grandson whose father received compensation as co-owner under rehabilitation scheme; applicability of 2010 policy to pre-acquisition lands; compliance with prior judicial directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Payment of compensation to father deems him land loser/co-owner regardless of mutation; applicant qualifies as son of land loser; parity with similarly placed cases upheld; policy benefits extend to legal heirs despite technicalities.

Result: OA allowed.

Table of Content
1. prior orders directed consideration under 2010 policy. (Para 2 , 3)
2. repeated rejections despite judicial directions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. prior findings bind; rejections discriminatory. (Para 8 , 9)
4. compensation to father deems him land loser. (Para 10 , 11)
5. entitled to rehabilitation employment; oa allowed. (Para 12 , 13)

O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Heard. Perused the pleadings made in the OA and the counter of the respondents so also the documents placed in support thereof. The facts borne from the record are as under.

2. The prayer of the applicant in this OA is to consider his case for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme apropos of the Circular dtd. 16.07.2010 as a land loser for acquiring certain portion of land by the Land Acquisition Officer for construction of Khurda Road Balangir New BG Rail Link Project. Uncontrovertibly, he had earlier approached this Bench in OA No. 428/2012, which was disposed of on 17.04.2015 with the direc“tIino nt ahse unlidghetr : of the discussions made above, Respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the applicant

"in the light of the notification dated 16.07.2010 keeping in mind the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Krushna Chandra Nayak (W.P.(C) No. 5102/2013) and communicate the result of such consideration to the applicant within an outer limiter of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents considered the case of the applicant but rejected his claim for rehabilitation appointment vide letter dated 06.02.2018 on the ground as under:

"As such, in obedience to above orders, for examining your claim pursuant to notification of Railway Board dated 16.07.2010, the Land Acquisition Officer, Khordha was asked to submit the land details and a departmental inquiry was also conducted to verify the genuineness of land records as well as your candidature. From the report submitted by the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Khordha vide letter dated 22.10.2016 and your depositions during inquiry held on 26.03.2017, it was revealed that the acquired land measuring total area A0.275 dcml. out of which A.0.110 dcml pertains to plot No. 231(P), Khata No.17 and A.0.165 dcml. to Plot No 232, Khata No.33, Mouza Kansapada under Jatani Tahasil in Khorda district stands recorded in the name of Kanchana Debi W/o Gobinda Rath. However your grandfather, Sri Bhagabat Muduli, S/o Gadei Muduli had purchased the aforesaid acquired land from Kanchan Debi W/o Gobinda Rath vide Sale Deed dated 23.01.1968. But, the lost land has never been recorded in your father's name prior to acquisition.

In the light of aforesaid factual position, your case has been examined in pursuance of the orders of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 17.04.2015 in OA No 428 of 2012 and Hon'ble High Court of Odisha, Cuttack dated 09.12.2015 in WP (C) No 20030 of 2015 vis-a- vis the Railway Board's notification dated 16.07.2010 (RBE 99/2010).

In this connection, it is to state that as per Para 1 (i) under Screening Criteria of the above Railway Board's notification dated 16.07.2010 (RBE No. 99/2010), "The applicant shall be a person (sole owner of land or son/daughter/husband/wife of the sole owner) whose land or a portion thereof has been acquired for the project."

In view of the eligibility criteria mentioned above as you are not the son of land loser, your candidature is, thereby, not coming within the purview for consideration as per extant rules. Hence your request for appointment pursuant to Railway Board's notification dated 16.07.2010 is not acceptable.

The above order is in compliances to the direction of Hon'ble Tribunal dt. 17.04.2015 in O.A No. 428 of 2012 and Hon'ble High Court of Odisha, Cuttack dated 09.12.2015 in WP (C) No. 20030 of 2015.”

4. The applicant filed OA No. 13/2020 challenging the aforesaid order of rejection. Respondents contested the case of the applicant and, finally, this Bench disp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2332

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative MemberBudhia Muduli – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA

Son of compensation-receiving co-owner qualifies as son of land loser for railway rehabilitation employment despite lack of mutation.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Budhia Muduli – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA