Negligible land acquisition not impacting family livelihood creates no entitlement to railway employment assistance.

The applicant’s land (Khasra No. 283/2/5, measuring 0.004 hectare) was acquired by the West Central Railway for a Rail Project, with an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on April 4, 2018.

The applicant sought appointment in the Railways under the then-existing policy for land losers.

The respondents contested the claim, citing the Railway Board’s circular dated November 11, 2019 (RBE No. 193/2019), which withdrew the policy of offering employment and replaced it with a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.

The respondents argued that the acquired area of 0.004 hectare was insufficient to constitute a primary source of livelihood for the family.

1. Whether the Railway Board’s policy dated November 11, 2019 (RBE No. 193/2019), withdrawing employment assistance, applies retrospectively to land acquired prior to its issuance.

2. Whether the acquisition of a nominal land area (0.004 hectare) entitles the land loser to employment assistance.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Railway Board Circular RBE No. 193/2019, which stipulates that the withdrawal of employment assistance is effective prospectively from November 11, 2019.

The principle established by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Petition No. 6992 of 2025, which held that employment cannot be claimed as a right if the acquired land area is so small that it does not affect the livelihood of the person.

The Tribunal noted that while RBE No. 193/2019 is generally prospective and should not bar claims where land was acquired before its issuance (as held in OA No. 200/275/2021), this rule is subject to the nature of the acquisition.

The Tribunal applied the specific reasoning of the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding the "livelihood" threshold.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s acquired land was a mere 0.004 hectare.

The Tribunal reasoned that such a negligible area cannot be considered a substantial source of livelihood for an entire family; therefore, the core justification for providing employment in lieu of land—to compensate for the loss of a primary sustenance source—did not exist in this case.

The court held that no right to employment arises from the acquisition of 0.004 hectare as it does not constitute a loss of livelihood.

The Original Application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.