UNION OF INDIA vs BHARATLAL SANODIYA

1

CGHC010005622026 2026:CGHC:45407-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Digitally signed by
BABLU RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date: 2026.10.28
10:38:30 +0530
WPS No. 718 of 2026
1 - Union Of India Through- General Manager, South East Central
Railway Bilaspur (CG) 482004.
2 - The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction), South East
Central Railway District- Bilaspur (CG) 495001.
3 - The Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Construction), South East
Central Railway District- Nagpur (MH) – 440001.
4 - Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), South East Central Railway
Nainpur District- Mandla (MP) 306104.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Bharatlal Sanodiya S/o Late Shri Deenadayal Sanodiya Aged About
46 Years Occupation-Unemployed R/o Village- Pipardahi Post Pipardahi
P.S. Lakhanwada Tehsil Seoni And District- Seoni (M.P.) 480661.
2 – Collector, Seoni District- Seoni (MP) 480661.
3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (R)/Land Acquisition Officer, Seoni, District
Seoni (MP) 480661.
... Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr.Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General
For Respondent : None
Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma, Judge

2
Order on Board
Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice
27.10.2026
1. Heard Mr.Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for
the petitioners/Union of India.
2. The matter has come up for consideration on admission.
3. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated
12.08.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in
O.A.No.200/315/2024, wherein learned Tribunal held that the
case of the petitioner therein (respondent No.1 herein) be
reconsidered for employment assistance. It is also observed
therein that if the respondent No.1 is otherwise found eligible, he
should be issued with necessary orders in that regard within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the
petitioners/Union of India submits that along with present
respondent No.1, several other land losers filed different original
applications seeking for employment assistance as their land was
acquired for a Railway project. At the relevant time, the policy
dated 16.07.2010 was in force which provided employment
assistance to the land losers. Subsequently, after coming into
force of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

3
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (for brevity
“2013 Act”), the policy was changed and the policy dated
11.11.2019 was put in place.
5. It is his submission that the case of the respondent should have
been considered under the policy dated 11.11.2019 and not under
the policy dated 16.07.2010. Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate
the same and recorded that the policy dated 16.07.2010 would be
applicable to the case of respondent No.1 and directed for
reconsideration of his case for employment assistance. It is his
further submission that at the time of consideration of the case of
respondent No.1, the policy dated 11.11.2019 was in force
superseding the earlier policy dated 16.07.2010. Thus, the case of
the respondent could not be considered under the policy dated
16.07.2010. He further submitted that under the policy dated
11.11.2019 no employment assistance is provided and only
lumpsum cash compensation is provided, which the Railway is
prepared to release in favour of the respondent and similarly
situated other land losers. He therefore prays for setting aside the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
6. Taking note of the submissions made by learned Deputy Solicitor
General and on perusal of the record, more particularly, the
impugned order as well as connected documents, it appears that
at the time of acquisition of the land of the respondent, the policy
dated 16.07.2010 was in force. Subsequently, after coming into

4
force of the 2013 Act, the policy dated 11.11.2019 was floated
superseding the earlier policy dated 16.07.2010. Para 5 of the
policy dated 11.11.2019 specifically states that the policy would be
applicable from the date of issuance of such letter. Thus, the
policy dated 11.11.2019 would only be applicable on and from
11.11.2019 and not before that. On the other hand, when the land
of respondent No.1 was acquired, the policy dated 16.07.2010
was in force. In the said policy, employment assistance was
provided. As such, the case of respondent No.1 should be
considered under the policy dated 16.07.2010 and cannot be
considered under the policy dated 11.11.2019, which had not
seen the light of the day, when the land of respondent No.1 was
acquired.
7. The Tribunal while adjudicating the matter relied upon the earlier
orders passed by the said Bench as well as the order dated
23.09.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS
No.5804/2022 ( Union of India Through The General Manager,
Sec Railway, Bilaspur and others v. Vijay Jaiswal ). In the said
order, it is specifically observed as under:-
“11. A perusal of the said policy would go to show that
irrespective of whether the land acquisition for railway
projects was done through the Railways Act, 1989 after
declaring it as Special Railway Project or through State
Governments, determination of compensation shall be
made in accordance with the First, Second and Third
Schedules of the Act of 2013 and accordingly, the

5
policy of offering appointment in Railways to affected
land losers was withdrawn and circulars issued in that
regard were superseded.
12. Clause 5 of the policy, however, makes it amply
clear that the new policy shall be effective from the
date of the issue of the letter. Therefore, there is no
manner of doubt that the earlier policy which was
withdrawn continued to remain in force till issuance of
the notification dated 11.11.2019.
13. In view of the above discussion, the view taken by
the CAT cannot be faulted with. Resultantly, we find no
merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.”
8. On perusal of the said order of the coordinate Bench, it appears
that the case of the respondent therein was identical to the case
of the respondent No.1 herein. Thus, we have no hesitation to
hold that learned Tribunal has committed no error in holding that
the policy dated 16.07.2010 would be applicable to the case of the
respondent and directing for reconsideration of the case of the
respondent. We accordingly affirm the same and direct that the
entire exercise shall be completed within the period stipulated in
the impugned order and, in the event the respondent is found
eligible, necessary orders shall be issued accordingly.
9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition, being devoid of any
merits, stands dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu