Mahesh Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant is a displaced landholder whose land and residential house situated at Village Dudhaila, Police Station Sonpur, P.S. No. 92, Pargana Kasmar, District Saran, measuring approximately 1.48 acres, were acquired by the Respondents/Railway for construction of the Rail-cum-Road Bridge/railway project. In this regard, notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 09.01.2008.

At the time of acquisition, the affected landholders raised objections, whereupon the Railway Administration agreed to provide employment to one eligible member of each displaced family in addition to payment of compensation. Pursuant thereto, the Respondents issued letters dated 10/23/24.08.2010 calling upon the affected persons to submit documents for consideration of appointment in the Railway. The applicant duly submitted the requisite documents, which were subsequently verified by the authorities.

Thereafter, a joint committee consisting of five members, including a Railway officer, was constituted to verify the acquisition of the land and dwelling houses of the displaced persons. The committee submitted its confirmation reports dated 21.06.2013 and 31.01.2014, and the DCLR, Sonpur, submitted his report dated 01.04.2014 along with the report of the civil authorities dated 30.03.2014, wherein the name of the applicant was duly included as an affected/displaced person.

Although the Respondents paid approximately 80% of the compensation, the appointment of the applicant’s son was not considered for a considerable period. Consequently, the applicant ^Patna and similarly situated persons approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 474 of 2015. The said Original Application was disposed of on 26.03.2019(Annexure A--4), taking into consideration the earlier orders of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 15820 of 2007 and MJC No. 2158 of 2013, wherein the Respondents were directed to consider similarly situated displaced persons for appointment where such appointments had been granted to other persons.

Similarly situated persons had in fact been granted appointment by the Respondents, including the son of Sri Yadu Nandan Prasad pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court, as well as Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Sri Kundan Raj and Sri Shailesh Kumar pursuant to subsequent orders of the Railway authorities. Thus, the Respondents themselves had extended the benefit of appointment to persons similarly situated to the applicant.

During the pendency of the earlier proceedings, the Respondents raised an objection that the acquired land stood in the names of three persons and was not exclusively recorded in the name of the applicant. The applicant, however, submitted a detailed representation dated 18.12.2017 along with documentary evidence establishing his exclusive ownership and clarifying that the persons referred to by the Respondents were different individuals having different parentage and no connection with the applicant.

Various documents and official communications dated 09.12.2015, 30.01.2016, 17.03.2016 and 20.04.2016, including Note dated 23.05.2016, further demonstrate that the Respondents had themselves verified and acknowledged the applicant’s claim and the acquisition of his residential house and land measuring more than 0.2 acre for the Railway project.

Despite the aforesaid facts, official records and the treatment accorded to similarly situated displaced persons, Respondent No. 6, by order dated 22.05.2019 (Annexure A-9), rejected the applicant’s request for appointment on the ground that no special dispensation had been granted by the Ministry of Railways for employment of displaced persons and that no employment had been provided under the Ganga Rail-cum-Road Bridge Extension Project.

The aforesaid ground of rejection is contrary to the factual position and the Respondents’ own records, as several similarly situated displaced persons had already been granted appointment. The applicant therefore challenged the said action and also initiated contempt proceedings by filing CCPA No. 79 of 2019; however, the contempt petition was subsequently dropped on 06.06.2019.

The applicant submits that the impugned action of the Respondents in denying appointment to his son, despite acquisition of the applicant’s land and dwelling house, verification of his claim by the competent authorities and appointment of similarly situated persons, is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law and violates the applicant’s rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present Original Application.

The respondents have opposed the applicant’ claim for employment on the ground that the applicant’ land was acquired in the year 2010 for the “Extension Project” of the Ganga Rail-cum-Road Bridge on the North Side of Sonpur. According to the respondents, the Ministry of Railways has neither issued any special policy nor granted any special dispensation for providing employment to persons whose land was acquired for the said Extension Project. It is further stated that no employment has been provided to any displaced person under the said extension project; therefore, the applicant cannot claim employment as a matter of right.

The respondents further state that, pursuant to the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 474 of 2015, the applicant’s claim was reconsidered on the basis of the available records and the applicable Railway rules and policies. Thereafter, a reasoned and speaking order dated 22.05.2019 was passed by the competent authority rejecting the claim as untenable.

The respondents have also contended that the judgments/orders relied upon by the applicant, including CWJC No. 15820/2007 and MJC No. 2158/2013 (Sri Yadunandan Prasad v. UOI), are not applicable to the applicant because the applicant were not parties to ^Patna those proceedings and, according to the respondents, those cases related to a different project and not the Extension Project in question.

With regard to the documents submitted by the applicant, particularly the letters dated 09.12.2015, 30.01.2016, 17.03.2016 and 20.04.2016, the respondents have pointed out alleged discrepancies in the measurement of the acquired land. The area has been variously mentioned as 90 sq. ft., 0.005 acre and 0-0-2-10 (two dhur and ten dhurki). On this basis, the respondents have questioned the consistency and credibility of the applicant’s claim.

The respondents have further relied upon the Jamabandi receipt for the year 2011–12, which allegedly records joint ownership in the names of Vishwajeet Kumar Singh, Jeetendra Kumar Singh and Mahesh Kumar Singh. It is therefore contended that the applicant has failed to establish exclusive ownership of the acquired land/house in his own name. The respondents have also stated that no partition deed or other supporting document evidencing batwara has been produced to establish the applicant’s sole ownership.

Another objection raised by the respondents is that the area on which the applicant’s house was allegedly situated was very small, i.e. approximately 90 sq. ft./0.005 acre/0-0-2-10, and according to them such an area could not reasonably be treated as a residential accommodation for the purpose of claiming employment.

On the basis of the above objections, the respondents maintain that the applicant’s claim is defective, doubtful and unsupported by the applicable Railway policy. They contend that the reasoned and speaking order dated 22.05.2019 was passed after due consideration of the relevant records and rules, and therefore the action of the respondents is neither unconstitutional nor discriminatory and does not violate the applicant’s fundamental or constitutional rights.

Accordingly, the respondents’ overall case is that the applicant has no enforceable right to employment in lieu of acquisition of his land, and that the petition is therefore liable to be dismissed both on facts and in law.

The applicant has failed to establish any enforceable right to appointment in the Railway merely on account of acquisition of his land and residential house for the Railway project.

It is not in dispute that the applicant's land was acquired and compensation was paid to him. However, acquisition of land, by itself, does not confer an indefeasible or vested right of employment upon the landholder or his dependent unless such benefit is specifically provided under an applicable statutory provision, policy, scheme or a binding decision of the competent authority. In the present case, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate the existence of any Railway policy or special dispensation applicable to the Extension Project under which appointment was mandatorily required to be offered to every ^Patna displaced person.

The reliance placed by the applicant upon the orders passed in CWJC No. 15820 of 2007, MJC No. 2158 of 2013 (supra) and the cases of certain other displaced persons also does not advance his case. The respondents have specifically stated that those proceedings related to persons/project circumstances different from the present case and does not relate to an Extension Project of the main project. Merely because appointment may have been granted to certain persons pursuant to particular orders or on the basis of the facts obtaining in their respective cases, the same cannot, in the absence of a demonstrable parity of all material facts and an applicable policy, create a general right in favour of the applicant. The documents relied upon by the applicant may establish acquisition of land and payment of compensation, and may also show that his claim was examined by the authorities. However, verification of the applicant as an affected/displaced person cannot, by itself, be construed as an assurance or promise of appointment. The applicant was required to establish not merely his status as a displaced landholder but also the existence of a corresponding legal entitlement to appointment under the governing Railway rules/policy. Such entitlement has not been established.

The respondents have also raised material objections regarding the description and measurement of the property and the entries in the revenue records, including the question of joint ownership and the absence of a document conclusively establishing exclusive ownership of the acquired property in the applicant's name. Therefore, in the absence of a specific employment policy, it does not automatically confer a right to appointment upon his son.

It is also significant that the impugned order dated 22.05.2019 was passed pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal for reconsideration of the applicant's claim. The competent authority considered the relevant material and rejected the claim by a reasoned order, recording that no special dispensation had been granted by the Ministry of Railways for employment of displaced persons under the Extension Project and that employment had not been provided under the said project. The applicant has not demonstrated that the ^Patna said finding is contrary to any binding statutory provision or applicable Railway policy.

The plea of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is equally without merit. In order to establish a claim for appointment attracting the constitutional guarantee of equality, the applicant must establish that he is similarly situated in all material respects and that the respondents were bound by a uniform policy applicable to him as well. In the present case, such parity has not been satisfactorily established. Nor can Article 16 be invoked to create a right to public employment where no such right otherwise exists under the applicable rules or policy.

It is further relevant that the policy relating to appointment of land-losers in the Railways was subsequently withdrawn. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its decision dated 29.01.2019, had already dealt with the issue concerning the land-loser policy. Subsequently, vide RBE No. 193/2019 dated 11.11.2019, the Ministry of Railways withdrew its earlier policy of offering appointment in the Railways to affected land-losers issued under the earlier references, and the circulars issued in that regard were superseded. The question in the present case, therefore, has to be examined with reference to the policy and instructions actually applicable to the acquisition in question and the applicant has not been able to establish that the policy of giving employment to the land losers also extended to the subsequent “Extension Project”.

The Ministry of Railways, vide order No. E(NG)II/2011/RC-5/ECR/3 dated 26.04.2011, clarified that no criteria in terms of the measurement of land, etc., had been laid down in absolute terms for providing employment to persons whose land had been acquired for Railway projects. It was further directed that whenever such instances arose, the cases were to be dealt with in terms of the instructions contained in letter No. E(NG)II/2002/RC-5/4 dated 19.04.2006, as advised earlier vide Ministry's letter No. E(NG)II/2002/RC-5/4 dated 28.07.2008. Thus, the mere fact of acquisition or the measurement of the acquired land cannot, by itself, be treated as creating an automatic or vested right to

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the acquisition in the present case was made in the year 2010 for expansion of the project and, therefore, the instructions contained in the letter dated 19.04.2006 could not be applied, also does not establish any enforceable right in favour of the applicant. The applicant has failed to point out any statutory provision or Railway policy applicable to the acquisition in question which made appointment to the landholder or his dependent mandatory.

The award relied upon by the applicant was issued on 17.03.2016 and relates to only 90 square feet of land. Apart from the dispute regarding the nature and extent of the applicant's ownership, the acquisition of such land and receipt of compensation do not, in the absence of a specific and applicable employment scheme, confer an automatic right to appointment in the Railway.

The applicant's age is also a relevant circumstance. At the time of filing of the Original Application, the applicant was stated to be about 53 years of age and, by the time of consideration of the matter, he had attained about 60 years of age. Although the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has throughout been seeking appointment for his son, no specific application or contemporaneous document has been brought on record demonstrating that the applicant had, at the relevant stage, made a specific claim seeking appointment of his son under an applicable Railway policy. A right to appointment of a dependent cannot be presumed merely from a subsequent assertion made during the proceedings.

The reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 10798/2025, Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors., decided on 07.11.2025, also supports the general legal proposition that acquisition of land ordinarily entitles the landowner or his family to compensation in accordance with law and does not, in the absence of a statutory provision, create an independent right to employment in lieu of the acquired land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there was no provision under the applicable statute for grant of a job in lieu of employment in lieu of acquisition could not prevail contrary to the governing statutory provisions.

The decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in LPA No. 465 of 2022 arising out of CWJC No. 21778 of 2019, Union of India & Ors. vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi & Ors., wherein the claims of land-losers were rejected, also lends support to the proposition that acquisition of land and payment of compensation do not, by themselves, create an enforceable right to appointment in public employment in the absence of an applicable legal or policy provision.

It is also material that the acquisition in the present case was undertaken by the State Government of Bihar and compensation was paid by the acquiring authority in accordance with the acquisition proceedings. The Railway, therefore, cannot be treated as having independently acquired the applicant's land merely because the acquisition was connected with or intended for a Railway-related project. The applicant has not demonstrated any direct statutory or policy-based obligation upon the Railway to provide employment to him or his son merely on account of the State Government's acquisition and payment of compensation.

The withdrawal of the earlier land-loser appointment policy vide RBE No. 193/2019 dated 11.11.2019 further makes it clear that appointment to affected land-losers was a matter governed by executive policy and not an automatic consequence of acquisition. Such executive benefits are available only subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable policy and cannot be claimed as an absolute constitutional or statutory right.

On an overall consideration of the material on record, the applicant has established only the factum of acquisition and receipt of compensation. He has not established that any statutory provision, Railway rule, binding policy or special dispensation applicable to the project conferred upon him, or upon his son, a vested or enforceable right to appointment.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the order dated 22.05.2019 ^Patna passed by the competent authority. The competent authority had reconsidered the applicant's claim pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal and passed a reasoned order. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order is contrary to any statutory provision or applicable Railway policy, or that the applicant and the persons relied upon by him were similarly situated in all material respects.

Consequently, the challenge to the impugned order dated 22.05.2019 fails. The Original Application is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. All pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

There shall be no order as to costs.