Solatium and Rehabilitation Benefits Prescribed under the RFCTLARR Act Subsume Corresponding Entitlements under the Railways Act, 1989.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a sum of 60% on the market value determined under Section 20-F(9) of the Railways Act, 1989, in addition to the 100% solatium awarded under Section 30(1) of the 2013 Act.

The court held

Petitioners are NOT entitled to the 60% additional amount under Section 20-F(9) as it is subsumed in the 100% solatium under the 2013 Act.

It also directed

Regarding rehabilitation, the Railways must pay the lump sum payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs as per the Railway Board Circular dated 11.11.2019, which implements the 2013 Act benefits.

The claim for 12% additional compensation on the multiplication factor is left open, with liberty granted to the petitioners to revive the claim following the Apex Court's final decision.

The Court further directed the State to appoint Administrators/Commissioners for future projects to ensure proper rehabilitation schemes under Chapter IV of the 2013 Act.

01Facts

The petitioners, whose lands were acquired for a ‘Special Railway Project’ under Chapter IV-A of the Railways Act, 1989, challenged the compensation awards passed by the competent authority in 2025.

¶ 7-8

While the awards incorporated the benefits of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) due to its application to Fourth Schedule enactments via a 2015 Central Government notification, the petitioners contended they were additionally entitled to a 60% solatium under Section 20-F(9) of the Railways Act specifically for special projects.

¶ 8, 9-11

They further sought benefits under the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 and an additional 12% amount on the multiplication factor under Section 30(3) of the 2013 Act.

¶ 8, 126

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a sum of 60% on the market value determined under Section 20-F(9) of the Railways Act, 1989, in addition to the 100% solatium awarded under Section 30(1) of the 2013 Act.

¶ 1(i)

ii.2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007, under Section 20-O of the Railways Act, or the rehabilitation benefits specified in the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act.

¶ 1(ii)

iii.3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an additional 12% amount under Section 30(3) of the 2013 Act computed on the multiplication factor of 2.

¶ 1(iii)

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 105 and Section 103 of the 2013 Act, which state that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws, and extended its benefits to the Railways Act via the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015.

¶ 45-50

It relied on the principle of implied repeal and the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, as discussed in Kishorebhai Khamanchand Goyal v. State of Gujarat and Harshad S. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra.

¶ 18, 25

The court also applied the concept of 'solatium' as defined in Sunder v. Union of India and the parity principle for compensation established in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.

¶ 77, 96

Provisions in the judgment · 34 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Advocates Act, 1961 Section 2

Railways Act, 1989 Section 2

Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 Section 4

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 31 provisions

Section 2 Section 3 Section 16 Section 17 Section 18 Section 19 Section 26 Section 27 Section 28 Section 29 Section 30 Section 31 Section 32 Section 33 Section 34 Section 35 Section 36 Section 37 Section 38 Section 39 Section 40 Section 41 Section 42 Section 43 Section 44 Section 103 Section 105 Section 106 Section 107 Section 108 Section 113

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that the 60% amount under Section 20-F(9) of the Railways Act and the 100% solatium under Section 30(1) of the 2013 Act are both "solatium" intended to compensate for the "compulsory nature of acquisition".

¶ 80, 111

Although Section 103 states the 2013 Act is "in addition to" other laws, the court interpreted this to mean that the higher benefit among competing provisions shall prevail, rather than allowing a double benefit.

¶ 116, 121

Since the 100% solatium under the 2013 Act is more beneficial than the 60% under the Railways Act, the latter is subsumed by the former.

¶ 124

Regarding rehabilitation, the court noted that the 2013 Act’s Second and Third Schedules have effectively replaced the 2007 Policy for acquisitions made after 2015.

¶ 132

For the 12% additional compensation, the court noted the issue is currently sub-judice before the Apex Court, staying the operation of its own previous ruling in SCA No. 7561 of 2023.

¶ 127-129

05Holding

Petitioners are NOT entitled to the 60% additional amount under Section 20-F(9) as it is subsumed in the 100% solatium under the 2013 Act.

¶ 140(I)

Regarding rehabilitation, the Railways must pay the lump sum payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs as per the Railway Board Circular dated 11.11.2019, which implements the 2013 Act benefits.

¶ 135-138

The claim for 12% additional compensation on the multiplication factor is left open, with liberty granted to the petitioners to revive the claim following the Apex Court's final decision.

¶ 130, 140(III)

The Court further directed the State to appoint Administrators/Commissioners for future projects to ensure proper rehabilitation schemes under Chapter IV of the 2013 Act.

¶ 141

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF