In a case where the writ petitioners were deprived from their entitlement of job on account of acquisition of their land, the Calcutta High Court has observed that Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to Public Private Partnership models. The High Court has also asked the competent authority to look into the grievance of the aggrieved owners.

The Writ Petitioners had approached the High Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ against the respondents/authorities for quashing the orders whereby and whereunder the writ petitioners’ claim for having a job in lieu of acquired land had been turned down.

The Single Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen said, “On perusal of Section 2(2) of the Act 30 of 2013, it reveals that Act 30 of 2013 applies in case of acquisition of land for Public Private Partnership (PPP) project.”

“...this Court directs the respondent no. 2/authority to consider the entitlement of the writ petitioners afresh in terms of the provision of Section 31 read with serial no. 4 of the 2nd schedule of the Act 30 of 2013 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and/or his/their authorized representative(s) as well as the respondent no. 11 and/or its authorized representative shall pass reasoned orders…”, it ordered.

Advocate Ujjal Ray represented the Petitioners while AGP Chadi Charan De represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Bench noted that the said Act was brought into force with effect from January 1,2014 and said, “...thus appears to this court that while enacting Act 30 of 2013, the legislatures have put stress not only on fair 15 compensation but also in case of transparency in rehabilitation and resettlement on account of land acquisition.”

“The object of Act 30 of 2013 is not only for determination and disbursement of compensation but also for rehabilitation and resettlement of the land losers”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that the Act 30 of 2013 applies in case of acquisition of land for Public Private Partnership (PPP) project. The stretch of land, in the instant case, had been acquired on Public Private Partnership (PPP) model. It was further noticed that the stand of the respondent authority was that the project for which land of the writ petitioner was acquired did not generate any employment. However, the writ petitioner had approached the court not on account of inadequacy of compensation but on account of refusal by the respondent to rehabilitate and resettle him in terms of the provision of the 2013 Act.

The Bench further mentioned that Clause (a) of Column no. 3 of Serial no. 4 deals with arrangement for a job in the relevant project to at least one member per affected family, Clause (b) of the same serial provides for onetime payment of Rs. 5 lakhs per affected family and Clause (c) of the self-same serial provides for payment of Rs. 2,000 per month per family for 20 years with appropriate indexation to the consumer price index for agricultural labors.

“This Court has meticulously gone through the provision of serial no. 4 of the second schedule of Act 30 of 2013 which clearly indicates the legislative mandate that the appropriate government shall ensure the affected families are provided with the three options as mentioned under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) in column no. 3 i.e., under the column Entitlement/Provision. It further appears to this Court that in the event, relief (a) cannot be granted, the affected families are to be provided with the options as mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of the column no. 3 i.e., one-time payment or annuity policies”, it held.

“At this juncture, if I look to the order dated 28.09.2022 as passed by the respondent no. 2/authority, it reveals that the respondent no. 2/authority had failed to visualize the true spirit of Section 31 of Act 30 of 2013 read with the provision of serial no. 4 of the second schedule of Act 30 of 2013”, it said while allowing the Petition and setting aside the impugned Order.

The Bench concluded the matter by directing the respondent authority to consider the entitlement of the writ petitioners afresh in terms of the provision of Section 31 read with serial no. 4 of the 2nd schedule of the 2013 Act and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners.

Cause Title: Hemanta Kumar Das v. Union of India & Ors. (Case No.: WPA 4846 of 2023)

Appearance

Petitioners: Advocate Ujjal Ray

Respondents: AGP Chadi Charan De, Advocates Anirban Sarkar, Soumitra Bandyapadhyay, Subhasish Bandyapadhyay, Rini Bhattacharyya

Click here to read/download Order


Calcutta High CourtJustice Partha Sarathi Sen

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.