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 Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen has held that the land acquired below the Personal and Public mannequin attracts the provisions of the Proper to Truthful Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act) due to this fact the advantages to the land losers below part 31 of the Act learn with Serial no.4 of the Second Schedule of the Act within the type of employment, annuity or a one time fee can’t be denied on the bottom that the land that was acquired doesn’t generate employment. If employment is just not attainable, advantages of different choices should be given to the land losers as the target of the Act is just not solely to supply compensation but additionally to rehabilitate and resettle the affected households..

Temporary Info:

The current writ petition has been filed towards an order handed by the Respondent No. 1 by which the petitioner’s declare for having a job in alternate of buying the land was rejected.

The Petitioner submitted that as per part 2 of the Act, the availability of the Act might be relevant to the acquisition of the current land.

It was additional submitted that willpower of rehabilitation and resettlement award below Chapter V of the Act is unbiased from the willpower of the compensation and solatium below Chapter IV of the Act.

It was additional submitted that as per serial quantity 4 learn with part 31 of the Act, the federal government is remitted to supply three choices to the affected households. It’s talked about that one member of the affected relations needs to be supplied a job. Clause b of the Serial No. 4 additional states that one time fee of 5 Lakhs Rupees needs to be supplied to every member of the affected household. Clause c supplies for the fee of Rs. 2000 monthly to every member of the family for 20 years.

Primarily based on the above, it was submitted that the Petitioner can’t be refused the entitlement of job on account of acquisition of land.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that all the technique of acquisition of land has been carried out below the Railways Act and the quantity to be paid to the affected households has been decided as per part 20F of the Railways Act by a reliable authority.

It was additional submitted that in case both of the events is just not glad with the quantity decided by the competent authority, the quantity can be decided by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Authorities. Primarily based on this, it was argued that when there may be an alternate treatment below the Railways Act, the writ petition can’t be entertained.

Respondent No.11 whereas supporting the arguments of the Respondent No. 2 submitted that within the absence of employment technology within the venture for which the land was acquired, the reduction as sought by the petitioner within the prompt petition can’t be allowed due to this fact the current petition needs to be dismissed.

Observations:

The court docket on the outset went via all the scheme of the Act and noticed that as per part 2(2) of the Act, it turns into evident that provisions of the Act additionally apply to the land acquired for Public Personal Partnership (PPP) venture. Within the current case, the land in query as per supplementary affidavit filed by the Respondent no. 11 has been acquired on the Public Personal Partnership (PPP) mannequin.

Primarily based on the above, the court docket held that the provisions of the Act for the aim of willpower of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement can be relevant within the current case.

The court docket additional famous {that a} cautious studying of the provisions of the Act together with schedule 1 and a pair of makes it clear that the thing of the Act is just not solely to supply compensation or solatium but additionally to rehabilitate and resettle the households whose lands are acquired.

It additionally rejected the arguments of the Respondent that because the cures towards insufficient compensation are supplied below the Act, the current writ petition shouldn’t be entertained. It noticed that the petitioners haven’t approached this court docket on account of insufficient compensation however as a result of failure of the Respondent in rehabilitating and resettling them after the acquisition of their land as per the provisions of the Act.

The court docket additionally rejected the submissions {that a} memo was launched on 11.11.2019 by which the sooner coverage of offering jobs in lieu of acquisition of land was withdrawn. It mentioned that such a memo can’t be utilized retrospectively to disclaim advantages to the land losers whose land was acquired as per provisions of the Act.

The argument that the venture for which the land of the Petitioners was acquired is just not producing employment due to this fact they can’t be supplied with a job as per schedule 4 of the Act. The court docket didn’t settle for this additionally and held that even when no employment could be given to the land losers, different advantages as supplied below clauses b and c can’t be denied.

Accordingly, the current writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Hemanta Kumar Das Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case Quantity: WPA 4846 of 2023, WPA 4985 of 2023 and WPA 4986 of 2023

Judgment Date: 20/06/2025

For the petitioners: Mr. Ujjal Ray

For the State WPA 4846 of 2023 With WPA 4985 of 2023. : Mr. Chadi Charan De, AGP Mr. Anirban Sarkar

For the State in WPA 4985 of 2023:Mr. Soumitra Bandyapadhyay Mr. Subhasish Bandyapadhyay

For the respondent no. 11: Ms. Rini Bhattacharyya