Land Losers Denied Compensation and Employment Rights Are Entitled Adjudicated Relief Under Applicable Railway Schemes

The applicant, a petty farmer, claimed that his family’s sole source of livelihood—a plot of land measuring 01 Bigha 00 Katha 15 Lessa—was acquired by the North East Frontier Railway in 2009 for the New Maynaguri-Jogighopa B.G. Railway Line project

He sought employment under the Railway Board circulars dated 16.07.2010 and 28.09.2010, which provide for the appointment of "land losers"

The respondents rejected his representation via a speaking order dated 16.11.2018, contending that the circular did not apply to land acquisitions concluded before the policy's issuance and that there was no record of the applicant’s land being acquired

However, the applicant produced a certificate from the Revenue Circle Officer dated 10.05.2016 confirming the acquisition

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the Railway Board's scheme for appointment of land losers despite the acquisition occurring in 2009

2. Whether the respondents’ denial of compensation or employment was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

Railway Board Circulars No. E(NG)II/2010/RC-5/1 dated 16.07.2010 and 28.09.2010, which established the criteria for considering land losers for Group ‘D’ employment

Circular dated 19.04.2006, which was in force at the time of the 2009 acquisition and offered similar benefits for land losers

The administrative principle that state authorities must act fairly and cannot deprive a citizen of livelihood without compensation or adherence to established benevolent schemes

The Tribunal found the respondents’ defense contradictory and "vague"

While the respondents argued that the applicant was a "fictitious claimant" and that no acquisition occurred, they failed to rebut the official certificate issued by the Revenue Authority (ADC, Bongaigaon) confirming the acquisition

The court observed that even if the 2010 Circular’s Para 8 technically excluded past acquisitions, the 2006 Circular was active during the 2009 acquisition period, ensuring the applicant’s eligibility

The Tribunal determined that the applicant had been left in a vacuum—deprived of his agricultural land without receiving monetary compensation, alternative land, or the promised employment. Such total deprivation of livelihood without any of the three forms of relief was deemed arbitrary and illegal

It held that the applicant had been unfairly deprived of his livelihood and directed the respondents to provide one of three remedies within four months: (a) return the land and pay use/occupation charges; (b) pay full compensation at applicable rates with 12% interest; or (c) grant the applicant compassionate appointment as per the 2006 and 2010 Circulars