Patna High Court
Sidheshwar Singh @ Sidheshwar PrasadversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The policy of granting employment in lieu of land acquisition cannot prevail over the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to railway employment.
Summary
The petitioners, four landowners whose dwelling houses were acquired by Indian Railways, filed a writ petition seeking employment in the railway under the ‘Land for Job’ policy, claiming they were physically displaced. They relied on earlier High Court orders and argued that the railway should appoint one person per family whose land or residence was acquired. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Bihar, contended that no such right exists. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), which held that the policy of granting jobs in lieu of land acquisition is illegal and cannot override the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides only monetary compensation. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioners to seek recalculated compensation based on current market value rates. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the railway’s ‘Land for Job’ policy creates a statutory right to employment for persons whose land or residence has been acquired.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana supersedes the railway’s policy and earlier High Court decisions.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to employment after a lapse of more than 18 years since the land acquisition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- employment in lieu of land
- Railway policy
- compensation
- statutory provision
- Supreme Court precedent
- Article 14
- displacement
- Market Value Rate
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19506 of 2021
======================================================
1. Sidheshwar Singh @ Sidheshwar Prasad S/o Sheopujan Singh R/O Village -
Mahavir Tola Chulhaichak, Dhanauth, P.O. - Sahaynagar, P.S. - Danapur,
District- Patna.
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Baijnath Prasad R/O Village - Mahavir Tola Chulhaichak,
Dhanauth, P.O. - Sahaynagar, P.S. - Danapur, District- Patna.
3. Baikunth Kumar S/o late Rajeshwar Singh R/o Ranipur Main Road,
Phulwarisharif, P.O. - Ranipur, P.S. - Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
4. Mohan Thakur S/o late Sadhu Thakur R/O Village - Mahavir Tola
Chulhaichak, Dhanauth, P.O. - Sahaynagar, P.S. - Danapur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Mahendru Ghat,
Patna.
4. Deputy General Manager, East Central Raiway, Danapur.
5. Chief Administrative officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali.
6. District Magistrate, Patna.
7. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishal Saurabh, Advocate
Ms. Kumari Anjali, Advocate
Mr. Sikandar Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy (GP-18)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-01-2026
Heard Mr. Vishal Saurabh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Shivaditya Dhari
Sinha, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Raj
Kishore Roy, learned GP-18 for the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.19506 of 2021 dt.31-01-2026
2/5
writ petition have sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
"(I) For direction to the official Respondents to
provide job by way of appointment as per their policy
decision/Guideline taken by Respondent Authorities to
provide job in Railway to one person per family whose 50%
land or 0.2 Acres which ever less has been acquired or
whose residential accommodation is acquired shall be
treated to have been physically displaced or their livelihood
materially affected shall be given employment in the
Railway and as the pucca house of the petitioners have
been acquired hence they are entitled to get job in Railway.
(II) For direction to the official Respondents to
provide job in the Railway in light of the order dated
27.9.12 passed in CWJC No. 8283/05 (Amod Kumar & Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and in CWJC No. 15820/07
(Yadunandan Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I.& Ors.) dated
10.10.12 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar
Tripathi.
(III) For further direction to the official
Respondents that they should adopt same parameters in
giving employment to the petitioners as has been done in
the case of Sonepur end, there shall be no discrimination in
providing job to the displaced persons on the ground of
territorial jurisdiction or delay occurred due to latches and
negligence on the part of official Respondents.
(IV) The Respondent Authorities be further
directed that they cannot improvise Article 14 of the
Constitution of India according to their own convenience
and they cannot adopt pick and choose method in providing
job to the similarly situated persons as has been done in
case of Sonepur end and other similarly situated persons of
Patna end.
(V) For that Railway Authority cannot deny job
on false ground that the land of the petitioners which have
been acquired is less than 20 decimalas a matter of fact
residential accommodation of petitioners have been
acquired and as such petitioners are entitled to get job
according to their own guideline of Railway.
(VI) For that the Railway Authority can not
deny the appointment of petitioners and their wards only on
the ground that they have less qualification, as a matter of
fact, this appointment is not a general appointment rather it
is a special appointment and if at all it is required then
petitioners shall be given time to procure the said
qualification and thereafter confirm their appointment,
instead of rejecting their claim."
Patna High Court CWJC No.19506 of 2021 dt.31-01-2026
3/5
3. The petitioners are aggrieved in the background of
the promise made on behalf of the Indian Railway, having not
fulfilled being denied of job in lieu of land acquired by the
Railway, over which, dwelling house of the petitioners have
existing.
4. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit and
supplementary counter affidavit including the Union of India
that no steps have been taken after dispossession of the
petitioners from their dwelling house for providing them job or
providing them any alternative place to reside.
5. Heard the parties.
6. The controversy in respect of giving employment
by the Indian Railway to the persons whose lands have been
acquired in view of the guidelines issued under the signature of
General Manager, Indian Railway on the basis of report
submitted by 'Four Member Committee' headed by the
Chairman of the Railway Board and other distinguished office
holders, commonly known as 'Land for Job' has now finally
been settled by the Apex Court vide order dated 07.11.2025 in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 30798 of 2025 (Sanjeev
Kumar vs. the State of Haryana & Ors.). The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has deprecated the policy decision, particularly, in respect
Patna High Court CWJC No.19506 of 2021 dt.31-01-2026
4/5
of giving job in lieu of the land acquired having held that the
same can not prevail over the statutory provision holding the
action of the authority to be illegal and in paragraph nos. 2 and 3
of the aforesaid order, the Apex Court has held has follows:
"2. The land of the family of the petitioner is
said to have been acquired in the year 1998 under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’). The
family of the petitioner was awarded compensation and the
same was also paid. The petitioner who was not even born
at the time when the land was acquired, in the year 2025,
applied for a job in lieu of the acquired land. The request
was rejected and the petition filed by the petitioner seeking
job in lieu of the land was also dismissed.
3. Under the provisions of the Act, on the land
being acquired, the petitioner or his family is entitled only
to the compensation which has already been paid. There is
no provision for grant of job in lieu of the acquired land.
The policy decision, if any, of giving job in lieu of the
acquired land cannot prevail over the statutory provisions
and as such, we find no error or illegality on the part of the
authorities and the High Court in dismissing the claim of
the petition for job, which was filed after more than 18
years of the framing of the policy."
7. The Constitution of India don't provide such action
to be legal in any manner.
8. In view of the above law laid down by the Apex
Court, without going into the merits of the case or directing the
any of the investigating agency to take action against the
General Manager of the Railway or the policy maker, based on
the advise of the 'Four Member Committee' report. I find that
the petitioners, who have been deprived of their dwelling house,
are required to be paid due compensation in accordance with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19506 of 2021 dt.31-01-2026
5/5
statutory provision on the basis of the prevailing M.V.R.
prevailing in the area by calculating compensation over and
above the amount of award on the basis of M.V.R. prevailing in
the area at the time of acquisition. The petitioners may approach
the authority concerned for recalculation on account of the
compensation on the basis of the present M.V.R. in the area
having been deprived of due compensation on account of void
policy.
9. With aforesaid observation/direction, the present
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…