Land loser employment benefits apply to PSU-executed projects if land is acquired under the Railways Act.

The applicants’ land was acquired by the Central Government for the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor, a "Special Railway Project," under the Railways Act, 1989, as amended in 2008

Upon acquisition, the land vested absolutely in the Central Government

The applicants sought employment under the Railway Board’s Land Loser Scheme (Circular RBE No. 99/2010), which provides for Group 'D' (PB-1) appointments to affected families

After several rounds of litigation, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in W.P.C.T. No. 91 of 2023 directed the respondents to consider the claims on parity with similarly situated land losers

The respondents issued a speaking order on 18.12.2024 rejecting the claims, asserting that the project was executed by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL), a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), and therefore the Railway Board’s 2010 policy was inapplicable

1. Whether the involvement of a PSU (DFCCIL) as the executing agency exempts the Ministry of Railways from applying its Land Loser Scheme (RBE 99/2010) when land is acquired under the Railways Act and vests in the Central Government.

2. Whether the impugned speaking order dated 18.12.2024 was legally sustainable in light of specific directions from the Hon’ble High Court to undertake a parity exercise with other railway projects.

Section 20-O of the Railways Act, 1989, which mandates that the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007, applies to all land acquisitions under the Act

The 2007 Policy stipulates that requiring bodies should provide employment preferences to affected families

Railway Board Circular RBE No. 99/2010, which governs appointments for land losers in railway projects

The court applied the principle from Anil Kumar v. Union of India (2019) 5 SCC 591, holding that State-framed policies must be implemented fairly and non-arbitrarily for similarly situated persons

The Tribunal found that although DFCCIL executed the project, the statutory notifications (S.O. 362(E) and S.O. 723(E)) confirmed that the land was acquired by the Ministry of Railways and vested in the Central Government for a "Special Railway Project"

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the project’s PSU status ousted the 2010 policy, noting that the essential character of the acquisition remained a "Railway Project" under the Railways Act

The Tribunal observed that since the acquisition occurred before the 2019 withdrawal of RBE 99/2010, the prospective withdrawal did not bar the applicants' claims

The Tribunal held that the respondents failed to comply with the High Court's mandate to perform a comparative analysis with other land losers who had received benefits, rendering the speaking order arbitrary and non-compliant

The Tribunal set aside the impugned speaking order dated 18.12.2024

The matter was remitted to the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh examination, specifically considering the nature of the acquisition under the Railways Act and the parity exercise previously directed by the High Court

The respondents were directed to pass a new reasoned and speaking order within three months