Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Of India Limited v. Veenaphalke
2018-09-25
GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
body2018
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. - This appeal has been preferred by three appellants, namely, (1) Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited through its Managing Director, (2) Executive Director (Land Amenities-1), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and (3) Railway Board through its Chairman, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, assailing the judgment dated 09.05.2018 whereby the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition filed by respondents. The learned Single Judge, while partly allowing the writ petition, quashed the notice dated 28.03.2018 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Ajmer, to the petitioners-respondents under Section 20-I of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008, to take the possession of the acquired land, with the liberty to issue fresh notice of sixty days and then undertake the exercise of rehabilitation and resettlement benefits in terms of the Second Schedule of the Entitlement Matrix, 2015, effective from 01st January, 2015, which was adopted by the Railways under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013'). 2. Earlier the notification dated 11.08.2009, published in daily newspaper 'Dainik Navjyoti' on 07.09.2009, was issued by the Railway Board, New Delhi, declaring the intention of the Central Government to acquire the land notified therein in exercise of section 20A(1) of the Railways Act, 1989, which was required for execution, implementation and management of the Special Railway Project, namely, Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in Ajmer, from Delhi to Mumbai for accelerating the railways transportation. The declaration under section 20E of the Railways Act, 1989, was then issued on 01.06.2010 by the Government declaring that the land mentioned therein shall be acquired for the purpose of DFCCIL and as per section 20E(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the said land shall vest with the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority on 14.07.2011. This award sought to acquire even certain parcels of such land which were not included in the Notification under section 20A and 20E of the Railways Act, 1989. The affected persons filed writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8961/2014, before this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2015, while upholding the acquisition in respect of other lands, quashed the above category of lands with the liberty to the Railways to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings.
The affected persons filed writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8961/2014, before this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2015, while upholding the acquisition in respect of other lands, quashed the above category of lands with the liberty to the Railways to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings. The Railways thereafter issued fresh Notification under section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989, on 06.06.2016, which was published in the daily newspapers on 20.06.2016. After deciding the objections, the declaration under section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989, was issued on 12.01.2017 which was published in the official Gazette on 26.01.2017. The claims of compensation were then invited by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer. 3. In the meantime, the Act of 2013 was enacted. Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 provided that the Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 01.01.2014, direct that any of the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and the Third Schedules being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactment specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be. It is not in dispute that the Fourth Schedule also includes the Railways Act, 1989, at its Serial No.13. The Central Government issued the requisite notification under Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 on 28.08.2015. The Railway Board conveyed the decision by communication dated 23.05.2015 addressed to the Managing Director of the DFCCIL sent by the Director Planning (Special), Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi, giving approval of the Entitlement Matrix for the DFC project in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. The First Schedule of the said Entitlement Matrix pertained to the compensation for all the assets attached to the land and the building. The Second Schedule thereto was relating to the resettlement and rehabilitation assistance for project affected people. 4.
The First Schedule of the said Entitlement Matrix pertained to the compensation for all the assets attached to the land and the building. The Second Schedule thereto was relating to the resettlement and rehabilitation assistance for project affected people. 4. The case of the petitioners-respondents was that in terms of the aforesaid Notification, the provisions relating to determination of compensation prescribed under the Act of 2013 including the provisions of compensation for land owners contained in First Schedule as well as provision of rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and the Third Schedules of the Act of 2013, would be applicable in the matters relating to the acquisition under the Railways Act, 1989. The Entitlement Matrix was accordingly prepared for the DFC Project in order to issue guidelines for determining the compensation as well as other benefits of rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. The Competent Authority of the Railways verified the site/physical position of the property sought to be acquired and prepared the survey report/physical inspection, which would reveal that the respondents have duly verified that there are hundred of persons whose residential houses were affected by the land acquisition proceedings. The petitioners-respondents submitted their claims to the Land Acquisition Officer demanding claim/compensation as also the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement as per the First and the Second Schedules of the Act of 2013. The case of the respondent/writ-petitioners has been summed up in para 20 of the writ petition, which reads thus:- "20. That apart from above, the petitioners and other persons interest prayed for granting benefits prescribed under Section 31 read with Second Schedule of the Act of 2013 stating therein that specific provision has been made under law for providing housing units in case the affected family is displaced due to acquisition. Provision has also been made for providing a constructed house having an area not less than 50 Sq. Mts. Apart from above, prayer was made that since the project proposed to be established after acquisition of land is likely to create huge number of jobs therefore in accordance with Second Schedule employment may be provided to at least 1 member of the affected family or in absence thereof payment of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs per affected family may be given. Petitioners and other affected families also prayed for granting subsistence allowance equivalent to Rs.
5.00 Lakhs per affected family may be given. Petitioners and other affected families also prayed for granting subsistence allowance equivalent to Rs. 3000/-per month for a period of 1 year and where the affected falls within the SC/ST category and is being displaced that shall receive an amount equivalent to Rs. 50,000/- in addition to aforesaid benefits. Transportation cost amounting to Rs. 50,000/- prescribed in II Schedule was also prayed one time re-settlement allowance as well as one time grant to the small traders, artisans and others was also prayed by the petitioners and other affected families. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Development Officer, Ajmer, however, in his award dated 27.10.2017, while computing the compensation, passed nil award with regard to the claim of the respondents for rehabilitation and resettlement as per the Second Schedule appended to the Act of 2013 on the premise that since livelihood of neither land owners nor the families was primarily dependent on the acquired land, they would not be entitled to any benefit thereof. In para 12 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge held as under:- "20. From the above, it is apparent that the benefit has to be granted to the petitioners who are residing in their residential houses and their livelihood is primarily dependent on the sole houses which they possessed. As per the Second Schedule the respondents are required to either provide a constructed house or grant cash assistance. However, in either cases, the order of the Land Acquisition Officer denying the petitioners the benefit of the Second Schedule is required to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside." 6. The learned Single Judge thereafter proceeded to examine whether the writ petitions could be dismissed without providing them rehabilitation and resettlement. Taking note of the fact that the respondents would be entitled to give a notice of 60 days to the petitioners in terms of Section 20-I asking them to surrender the possession of the property which has been acquired by them but the notice was issued by the respondents on 28.03.2018 giving them time of 7 days which was not in conformity with Section 20-I, supra.
The same was, therefore, quashed and set aside, however, liberty was given to the Railways to give fresh notice in terms of Section 20-I for providing notice of 60 days, however, it was directed that "the exercise relating to resettlement and rehabilitation in terms of the Schedule Second of the entitlement matrix adopted by the Railways under the Act of 2013 has to be conducted within a period of three months henceforth." 7. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the competent authority, i.e., the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, has already passed the award determining the compensation. Most of the land owners have received the compensation and in respect of those who have not accepted the same, the appellants have deposited the amount with the competent authority. The appellants have thus become entitled to take possession of the acquired land in terms of Section 20-I of the Act of 1989. Two public notices were published in the daily newspapers on 01.12.2017 and 21.02.2018 under Section 20-I of the Act of 1989 to deliver possession and asking the land owners to receive compensation. The third notice dated 28.03.2018 of seven days served on the petitioners, which has been quashed by the learned Single Judge, was in fact not the notice under Section 20-I but was only in the form of information to take possession. 8. It is submitted that the DFC project is a very ambitious project of the Railways to revolutionize the railway transport logistics and keep Railways in its pivotal role of economic renaissance of the country. The project has been conceived with the latest technology and advanced specifications and quality. The long and heavy haul electrified trains shall run with the high speed. The houses, which are sought to be acquired, were constructed in clear violation of the circulars issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, prohibiting any kind of construction within thirty meters of the railway land boundary. In fact, the appellants have planned to construct two railway tracks along the existing running railway line by utilizing the existing railway land. The DFCCIL is using 60%-70% of existing railway land available with them for the purpose. Only an additional narrow strip of land measuring 5 meters to 15 meters is being acquired in the locality wherein the respondents are residing.
The DFCCIL is using 60%-70% of existing railway land available with them for the purpose. Only an additional narrow strip of land measuring 5 meters to 15 meters is being acquired in the locality wherein the respondents are residing. The purpose is to maintain the healthy distance between the proposed railway line and the adjoining houses. The additional strip of acquired land shall be primarily used for providing an approach road of sufficient width to the respondents and other public residing in that area. It is argued that out of 345 kilometers of the strip of the corridor, the appellants have already acquired and taken possession of 99.9% land. The work is in progress and only 0.81 hectare of land spanning in a stretch of 1.1 kilometer in Ajmer, which is the disputed land, is yet to be taken in possession. This has slowed down the progress of the entire project. 9. On the merits of the case, the learned senior counsel has argued that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement in terms of the Second Schedule appended to the Act of 2013 as the claim of rehabilitation and resettlement is part of the overall claim of compensation. The compensation has already been awarded and, on not accepting the same by the respondents, has been deposited with the competent authority. The respondents have efficacious statutory remedy under Section 20F(6) of the Act of 1989, if they are not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority. In fact, the respondents have already invoked the said remedy of arbitration. The Central Government, on the application filed by the respondents, has already appointed the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, as the Arbitrator who is ceased with the matter. On depositing the amount of compensation, the respondents shall become entitled to take possession of the acquired land in terms of Section 20-I of the Act of 1989. The respondents can claim the further benefits of rehabilitation and resettlement in the arbitration proceedings. It is argued that total 218 structures have been acquired in revenue village Kiranipura and Thok Maliyan in Ajmer. These structures include houses, boundary walls, chabutaras, etc. In village Kiranipura, 107 such structures have been acquired and all the project affected persons have received the compensation and vacated the structures and given possession to the appellants.
It is argued that total 218 structures have been acquired in revenue village Kiranipura and Thok Maliyan in Ajmer. These structures include houses, boundary walls, chabutaras, etc. In village Kiranipura, 107 such structures have been acquired and all the project affected persons have received the compensation and vacated the structures and given possession to the appellants. Similarly, in village Thok Maliyan, there are 111 structures which have been acquired. The compensation for 51 structures out of 111 has already been disbursed to the affected families and the owners of four structures have also given consent to receive compensation. In fact, more project affected persons are willing to accept the compensation but some of the petitioners-respondents are misguiding them and preventing them to do so in their own personal interest. The majority of the affected families have given their consent and received compensation. 10. It is argued that no such notification as envisaged under Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 has been issued by the Central Government as yet. Even otherwise, the Committee under the Second Scheduled read with Section 38(1) of the Act of 2013 was constituted by the competent authority. The Committee has visited the affected premises and after thorough analysis and inspection, prepared a report which concluded that there was not a single family whose livelihood was primarily dependent on the said acquired land/house. They were, therefore, rightly not held entitled to any rehabilitation/resettlement. 11. It is argued that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in para 9 and 12 are contradictory. While in para 9 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the appellants to take possession after giving fresh notice under Section 20-I of the Act of 1989 and further directed to complete the exercise of rehabilitation and resettlement under the Entitlement Matrix within a period of three months with the liberty to the respondents to again approach this Court, if that was not done. In para 12 of the same impugned judgment, the award passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Competent Authority has been set aside in entirety. But again in para 13 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the respondents would be entitled to give notice of 60 days asking them to surrender the possession.
In para 12 of the same impugned judgment, the award passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Competent Authority has been set aside in entirety. But again in para 13 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the respondents would be entitled to give notice of 60 days asking them to surrender the possession. Once the award has been set aside, how the notice under Section 20-I could be issued, argued the learned senior counsel. 12. It is argued that the land in the present case has been acquired in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Act of 1989 and not under the Act of 2013. The Central Government was required to issue Notification in terms of Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 within a period of one year commencing from the application of the said Act. No notification was issued within a period of one year. However, the Notification was issued by the Central Government much after one year on 28.08.2015. As the Act was made effective from 01.01.2014, the said Notification, therefore, cannot be said to have been issued in terms of Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 and would not apply to the enactment of the land acquisition contained in the Fourth Schedule. This notification, in fact, is the notification under Section 113 of the Act of 2013, which is made for removal of the difficulties. 13. It is argued that Sections 31, 38, 51, 64 and 105(3) of the Act of 2013 are not applicable in the present land acquisition proceedings. Section 31 of the Act of 2013 deals with the provisions of rehabilitation and resettlement of the award for the affected families by the Collector when the land is required under the provisions of the Act of 2013. However, this cannot apply to the land acquisition proceedings where payment of compensation is made. These benefits are granted under Section 24 of the Act of 1989. In any case, the railways have prepared separate Entitlement Matrix which has been made effective from 01.01.2015, which fact has been recognized by the learned Single Judge also. Those benefits, therefore, would be claimed in terms of the Act of 1989 and not as per the Act of 2013.
In any case, the railways have prepared separate Entitlement Matrix which has been made effective from 01.01.2015, which fact has been recognized by the learned Single Judge also. Those benefits, therefore, would be claimed in terms of the Act of 1989 and not as per the Act of 2013. Further more, Sections 51 and 64 of the Act of 2013 are applicable only to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 2013. The award passed can be challenged under Section 20F(6) of the Act of 1989 whereas award passed under the Act of 2013 can be challenged under Section 64 before the competent authority under Section 51 of the Act of 2013. The respondents, therefore, cannot claim enhancement of compensation in terms of matrix for benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement, only from arbitration under the Act of 1989 and not under the Act of 2013. In fact, the learned Single Judge has taken divergent view while dismissing the Writ Petitions No.3651/2018 - Shankar Singh vs. Union of India and No.585/2018 -Smt. Gurmeet Kaur vs. DFCCIL, vide judgment dated 13.04.2018, and held that arbitrator is available to the affected persons under Section 51 of the Act of 2013, whereas in the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the respondent would not have remedy under Section 51 of the Act of 2013 but only under Section 20-F(6) of the Act of 1989. 14. Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners respondents, opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. He has argued that apart from the compensation, the respondents are entitled to the benefits prescribed under Section 31 read with the Second Schedule of the Act of 2013 as the specific provisions have been made in the law for providing housing units in case the affected family is dispossessed due to the acquisition as also the constructed house in an area not less than 50 square meter in plinth. Prayer was also made by the respondents/writ-petitioners that at-least one member of the affected family be provided such shop or in absence thereof payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- per affected family be given. It is submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer in its award has taken into consideration Sections 31(1), 38(1) and 105(3) of the Act of 2013.
Prayer was also made by the respondents/writ-petitioners that at-least one member of the affected family be provided such shop or in absence thereof payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- per affected family be given. It is submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer in its award has taken into consideration Sections 31(1), 38(1) and 105(3) of the Act of 2013. The appellants, therefore, cannot now argue before this Court that those provisions would not be applicable. The market value of the acquired land has not been determined as prayed for by the writ-petitioners/respondents. In so far as therefore the inadequacy of compensation is concerned, the respondents have already taken necessary steps by filing claim before the Arbitrator in accordance with Section 20-F (6) of the Act of 1989 read with Section 64 of the Act of 2013. Even though such applications are pending before the Arbitrator (the Divisional Commissioner) for last one year, no effective order has been passed. But the cause of action for filing the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was different than one for enhancement of the compensation. The respondents had to approach this Court by filing the writ petition as they were sought to be uprooted wholly from their houses. They were entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement in terms of their own policy of the appellants. When they were served with the notice dated 28.02.2017 asking them to vacate the premises within seven days, they had no remedy except to approach this court. It is argued that the appellants ought not to be allowed to argue contrary to their own admitted documents, in that the railways have already issued the Entitlement Matrix by adopting the Second Schedule of the Act of 2013 for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement. The appellants, therefore, now cannot be permitted to contend that the provisions of the Second Schedule appended to the Act of 2013 would not apply to them. 15. It is argued that Section 20-I of the Act of 1989 envisaged only compensation and, therefore, rehabilitation and resettlement cannot be read into that, especially when a specific and separate provision in Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 thereabout has been made applicable and the benefits of the Second Schedule have been made applicable by virtue of the inclusion of the Act of 1989 in the Fourth Schedule thereto.
Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 is acting as a bridge between that Act and the enactments included in the Fourth Schedule, which also includes the Act of 1989. Reliance in support of this argument is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in Phool Kanwar and Others vs. Union of India and Others -D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9577/2015, decided on 12.04.2017. 16. It is argued that the Arbitrator under Section 20F(6) of the Act of 1989 or the provisions under Section 16 of the Act of 2013 has no jurisdiction to grant protection from illegal demolition of the houses of the respondents and, therefore, he cannot examine the effect of non-compliance of Section 38 of the Act of 2013. The enhancement of compensation, if at all takes place, would not take care of the entitlement of the petitioners-respondents to claim rehabilitation and resettlement. The appellants cannot dispossess the respondents from their own residential houses without following the mandatory provisions of law for granting benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement. The learned counsel has argued that the property right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India is not only constitutional but also a human right. No person can be deprived of the property without authority of law. 17. The learned counsel, in support of the arguments, has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Devsharan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - (2011) 4 SCC 769 , State of Haryana and Others vs. Mukesh Kumar and Others - (2011) 10 SCC 404 , and Lalaram and Others vs. Jaipur Development Authority and Another - (2016) 11 SCC 31 . Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai - (2005) 7 SCC 627 and Radhey Shyam vs. Stae of U.P. - (2011) 5 SCC 553 , the learned counsel further argued that the land acquisition laws are confiscatory in nature and, therefore, are required to be construed strictly. The petitioner-respondents are in fact not opposing the acquisition. What they are demanding is the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement in terms of the policy of the appellants. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal be dismissed. 18. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record. 19.
The petitioner-respondents are in fact not opposing the acquisition. What they are demanding is the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement in terms of the policy of the appellants. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal be dismissed. 18. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record. 19. The arguments in this case had taken place on 07.09.2018 and the judgment was reserved by this Court. Both the parties submitted their written arguments in which many such points were raised which were not canvassed during hearing. The matter was therefore listed before the Court today under "To Be Mentioned" category. 20. The learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 15-the writ petitioners in the written submissions has elaborately dealt with the aspect of rehabilitation and resettlement of Respondents No. 1 to 15 in terms of the Second Schedule appended to the Act of 2013 particularly after issuance of the notification dated 28.05.2015 in terms of Section 105(3) which makes the provisions of the Act of 2013 applicable to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Railways Act by virtue of the fact that the same has been mentioned at Serial No. 13 of the Act of 2013 in the Fourth Schedule appended to the Act of 2013. The arguments of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 to 15 is that Sections 31 and 38 of the Act of 2013 would be applicable to them and the appellants cannot dispossess them and take possession of the land unless full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to them within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in the Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award made under Section 30 of the Act of 2013. 21.
21. Considering that the project of Dedicated Freight Corridor is an ambitious project of national importance, in case the present appeal is decided on merits holding that the appellants cannot take possession of the land of Respondent No. 1 to 15 till they are rehabilitated, this might hamper the entire project and if it is held otherwise, the matter would be, in any case, will not attain finality, as Respondent No. 1 to 15 would have the remedy of approaching the Supreme Court against the judgment that may be passed by this Court. The provisions contained at entry 1 of the Second Schedule appended to the Act of 2013 pertain to the provision of housing units in case of displacement. Clause (1) of Column (3) of this Schedule provides that if a house is lost in rural areas, a constructed house shall be provided as per the Indira Awas Yojana specifications. If a house is lost in urban areas, a constructed house shall be provided which will be not less than 50 square metres in plinth area. Clause (2) further provides that the aforesaid benefits shall also be extended to all the affected families which are without homestead land and which has been residing in the area continuously for a period of not less than three years preceding the date of notification of the affected area and which has been involuntarily displaced from such area. This, however, is subject to proviso that any such family in urban areas which opts not to take the house offered, shall get a one-time financial assistance for house construction, which shall not be less than one lakh fifty thousand rupees. The Explanation given below, however, clarifies that the houses in urban areas may, if necessary, be provided in multi-storied building complexes. 22. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that Respondents No. 1 to 15 have demanded not only rehabilitation in complete package in terms of Section 31 of the Act of 2013 but also employment to at least one member of the affected family or in absence thereof payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- per affected family. Respondents No. 1 to 15 have also demanded subsistence allowance equivalent to Rs. 3,000/- per month for a period of one year and where the affected fall within the SC/ST category and are being displaced, they shall also receive an amount equivalent to Rs.
5,00,000/- per affected family. Respondents No. 1 to 15 have also demanded subsistence allowance equivalent to Rs. 3,000/- per month for a period of one year and where the affected fall within the SC/ST category and are being displaced, they shall also receive an amount equivalent to Rs. 50,000/- in addition to the aforesaid benefits. They may also be provided transportation cost amounting to Rs. 50,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule. 23. We do not, for the present, wish to go into the question whether the SDO was correct or not in holding that the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement would be granted to only such landholders and families who were primarily dependent on the acquired land for their livelihood, as the remedy of arbitration has already been availed by the respondents and the Arbitrator would be entitled to rule on the quantum of adequacy or otherwise quantum of compensation as also entitlement of Respondent No. 1 to 15 to receive the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement in terms of the Entitlement Matrix issued by the Railways. Yet we are of the view that the appellants ought not be restrained from taking possession of patch of the land where the houses of respondents no.1 to 15 are situated. The appellants have acquired and taken possession of 99.9% land in a stretch of 345 Kms. For construction of Dedicated Freight Corridor except 0.81 hectare of land stretching in 1.1 Kms. In Ajmer, which at certain places in the memorandum of appeal has been described as patch of 600 meters. In any event, the appellants have taken possession of almost entire stretch of the land. 24. Keeping that view in mind, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, was asked by the Court to give a reasonable offer for amicable resolution of the dispute. He was fair enough to offer deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- in respect of respondents no.1 to 15 are not willing to accept the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which is the amount payable in the case of reluctance to receive the house by way of rehabilitation. He submitted that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- being double of that amount would be adequate and reasonable to safeguard the interests of respondent no.1 to 15.
1,50,000/- which is the amount payable in the case of reluctance to receive the house by way of rehabilitation. He submitted that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- being double of that amount would be adequate and reasonable to safeguard the interests of respondent no.1 to 15. His further submission is that this judgment should not be made precedent for future cases, as the land acquisition proceedings in respect of thousands of persons falling on Delhi-Mumbai Dedicated Freight Corridor have become final and possession of the land already been taken of. If this is not made so specifically clear in this judgment, the landholders in many cases might again resort to litigation claiming similar benefits and many cleared cases would get reopened. 25. We are clear in our mind that this kind of judgment is being passed in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, which shall be confined to only Respondent No. 1 to 15 herein and not be treated as precedent for any future case. This is being done in special circumstances of this case of 15 respondents whose land was though covered in the original award, even though it was not mentioned in the notification issued under section 20A and 20E of the Railways Act. But at the same time, we deem it appropriate that the amount to be deposited by the appellants should be marginally higher than what has been offered and in our considered view, this amount should be Rs. 4,00,000/- per respondent, which shall be subject to the award that may be passed by the Arbitrator in terms of section 20F(6) of the Railways Act, the proceeding of which has been initiated at the instance of respondents no.1 to 15. 26. In the result, this appeal is disposed of with modification in impugned judgment in the following terms: (1) The impugned judgment in so far as it has annulled the award of the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, is set aside. (2) The appellants shall be entitled to take possession of the disputed portions of acquired land with respect of respondents no.1 to 15 only after depositing a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- in respect of each respondent with the competent authority. (3) The appellants shall proceed to take possession of the disputed portions of the acquired land only 15 days after deposit of aforesaid amount.
4,00,000/- in respect of each respondent with the competent authority. (3) The appellants shall proceed to take possession of the disputed portions of the acquired land only 15 days after deposit of aforesaid amount. (4) The aforesaid deposit shall not be taken as final in either way and shall be subject to award that may be passed by the Arbitrator to whom reference under section 20F(6) of the Railways Act has already been made with respect to not only enhancement of amount of compensation but also rehabilitation, resettlement and other claims made by Respondents No. 1 to 15. (5) The Arbitrator shall conclude the proceedings and pass the final award within four months from the date of copy of this judgment is produced before it. (6) 50% of the aforesaid amount shall be disbursed to Respondents No. 1 to 15 and remaining 50% of the amount shall be invested in FDR with a Nationalised Bank for a period of six months to be renewed from time to time subject to any order that may be passed by the Arbitrator. (7) This judgment shall be confined to the present appeal only and shall not be treated as precedent in other cases in future.