Patna High Court Overturns Single Judge’s Decision on Railway Land Acquisition Jobs: “No Employment for Mere Strip of Land”
In a landmark judgment, the Patna High Court has set a new precedent in the ongoing debate over employment policies following land acquisition for railway projects. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar, overturned the Single Judge’s directive, clarifying the conditions under which employment can be claimed post-land acquisition by the railways.
In their decision regarding Letters Patent Appeal No. 465, 466, and 467 of 2022, the court observed, “Only small strips of land were acquired from each of the respondents… There is no complete loss of homestead or loss of substantial livelihood for reason of the acquisition nor is it pleaded by any of the respondents.” This statement formed the crux of the court’s decision to disallow employment claims by petitioners whose lands were acquired by the railways for projects including the Ganga Bridge extension and the Hajipur-Sugauli Railway Line.
The petitions, raised by various landowners including Smt. Sumitra Devi, challenged the Railway’s delay and inconsistencies in providing employment in addition to monetary compensation for the acquired land. The Senior Counsel for the railways argued against the employment claims, citing the absence of stipulations in the policy for two of the three projects and emphasizing the need for meeting eligibility criteria and timing constraints.
The court delved into the specifics of railway employment policies, noting the importance of fulfilling educational qualifications and recruitment criteria within a specific timeframe post-acquisition. Upholding the principles of equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution, the bench declared, “There can be no appointment without a recruitment, and the provision is only for preferential weightage.”
Referencing several Supreme Court judgments, including the notable cases of Umesh Kumar Nagpal and Anil Kumar, the bench underscored the necessity for consistent policy application and timely action. The judgment, while setting aside the Single Judge’s orders, stressed the need for individual case analysis and application of current policies, leaving no room for a uniform approach for all appellants.
This decision marks a significant moment in the discourse surrounding land acquisition and employment, reiterating the court’s stance that monetary compensation remains the primary form of redress, with employment being a conditional and secondary consideration.
Date of Decided on: 21-03-2024
THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. SUMITRA DEVI WIFE OF SAJINDRA ROY AND OTHERS
