Land Losers Can't Be Denied Benefit U/S 31 Of Land Acquisition Act, Even If Acquired Land Does Not Generate Employment: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen has held that the land acquired under the Private and Public model attracts the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act) therefore the benefits to the land losers under section 31 of the Act read with Serial no.4 of the Second Schedule of the Act in the form of employment, annuity or a one time payment cannot be denied on the ground that the land that was acquired does not generate employment. If employment is not possible, benefits of other options must be given to the land losers as the objective of the Act is not only to provide compensation but also to rehabilitate and resettle the affected families..Brief Facts:The present writ petition has been filed against an order passed by the Respondent No. 1 by which the petitioner's claim for having a job in exchange of acquiring the land was rejected.The Petitioner submitted that as per section 2 of the Act, the provision of the Act will be applicable to the acquisition of the present land.It was further submitted that determination of rehabilitation and resettlement award under Chapter V of the Act is independent from the determination of the compensation and solatium under Chapter IV of the Act.It was further submitted that as per serial number 4 read with section 31 of the Act, the government is mandated to provide three options to the affected families. It is mentioned that one member of the affected family members should be provided a job. Clause b of the Serial No. 4 further states that one time payment of 5 Lakhs Rupees should be provided to each member of the affected family. Clause c provides for the payment of Rs. 2000 per month to each family member for 20 years.Based on the above, it was submitted that the Petitioner cannot be refused the entitlement of job on account of acquisition of land.Per contra, the Respondent submitted that the entire process of acquisition of land has been conducted under the Railways Act and the amount to be paid to the affected families has been determined as per section 20F of the Railways Act by a competent authority.It was further submitted that in case either of the parties is not satisfied with the amount determined by the competent authority, the amount would be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. Based on this, it was argued that when there is an alternate remedy under the Railways Act, the writ petition cannot be entertained.Respondent No.11 while supporting the arguments of the Respondent No. 2 submitted that in the absence of employment generation in the project for which the land was acquired, the relief as sought by the petitioner in the instant petition cannot be allowed therefore the present petition should be dismissed.Observations:The court at the outset went through the entire scheme of the Act and observed that as per section 2(2) of the Act, it becomes evident that provisions of the Act also apply to the land acquired for Public Private Partnership (PPP) project. In the present case, the land in question as per supplementary affidavit filed by the Respondent no. 11 has been acquired on the Public Private Partnership (PPP) model. Based on the above, the court held that the provisions of the Act for the purpose of determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement would be applicable in the present case.The court further noted that a careful reading of the provisions of the Act along with schedule 1 and 2 makes it clear that the object of the Act is not only to provide compensation or solatium but also to rehabilitate and resettle the families whose lands are acquired.It also rejected the arguments of the Respondent that since the remedies against inadequate compensation are provided under the Act, the present writ petition should not be entertained. It observed that the petitioners have not approached this court on account of inadequate compensation but due to the failure of the Respondent in rehabilitating and resettling them after the acquisition of their land as per the provisions of the Act.The court also rejected the submissions that a memo was released on 11.11.2019 by which the earlier policy of providing jobs in lieu of acquisition of land was withdrawn. It said that such a memo cannot be applied retrospectively to deny benefits to the land losers whose land was acquired as per provisions of the Act.The argument that the project for which the land of the Petitioners was acquired is not generating employment therefore they cannot be provided with a job as per schedule 4 of the Act. The court did not accept this also and held that even if no employment can be given to the land losers, other benefits as provided under clauses b and c cannot be denied.Accordingly, the present writ petition was allowed.Case Title: Hemanta Kumar Das Vs. Union of India & Ors.Case Number: WPA 4846 of 2023, WPA 4985 of 2023...

Land Losers Can't Be Denied Benefit U/S 31 Of Land Acquisition Act, Even If Acquired Land Does Not Generate Employment: Calcutta High Court

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Land Losers Can't Be Denied Benefit U/S 31 Of Land Acquisition Act, Even If Acquired Land Does Not Generate Employment: Calcutta High Court

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers