01Facts
Bharatlal Sanodiya’s land was acquired for a railway project while the Railway policy dated 16 July 2010—which provided employment assistance to affected landowners—was in force.
¶ 3–6After the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force, the Railways issued a revised policy dated 11 November 2019, providing lump-sum compensation instead of employment assistance.
¶ 3–6The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Railways to reconsider Sanodiya’s claim under the 2010 policy and, if he was eligible, issue the necessary orders.
¶ 3–6The Union of India challenged that direction, contending that the 2019 policy governed his claim.
¶ 3–602Issues
i.Whether Sanodiya’s claim for employment assistance was governed by the Railway policy dated 16 July 2010, in force when his land was acquired, or the superseding policy dated 11 November 2019
¶ 5–6ii.Whether the Tribunal erred in directing reconsideration of his claim under the 2010 policy
¶ 5, 803Law Applied
The Railway policy dated 16 July 2010 provided employment assistance to land losers, while the policy dated 11 November 2019 superseded the earlier policy and provided lump-sum compensation.
¶ 6Under paragraph 5 of the 2019 policy, it became effective only from its date of issuance; it did not apply retrospectively to acquisitions made while the 2010 policy remained in force.
¶ 6The Court also relied on Union of India v. Vijay Jaiswal, WPS No. 5804 of 2022, which held that the earlier policy continued to operate until the 2019 policy was issued.
¶ 704Reasoning
The Court found that Sanodiya’s land was acquired when the 2010 policy was in force.
¶ 6–8Because the 2019 policy expressly took effect from 11 November 2019, it could not govern an earlier acquisition.
¶ 6–8The Court considered the facts materially identical to those in Vijay Jaiswal, where the continuing effect of the earlier policy until issuance of the 2019 policy had been affirmed.
¶ 6–8It therefore found no error in the Tribunal’s direction to reconsider Sanodiya’s claim under the 2010 policy.
¶ 6–805Holding
The Court held that the 2010 policy governed Sanodiya’s claim and affirmed the Tribunal’s order.
¶ 8–9It directed the Railways to complete the reconsideration within the period specified by the Tribunal and, if Sanodiya was found eligible, issue the necessary orders.
¶ 8–9The writ petition was dismissed.
¶ 8–9Original Court PDF
UNION OF INDIAvsBHARATLAL SANODIYA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
