Bombay High Court
SANJAY BABAN GIRHEversusTHE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER DEDICATED FRIEGHT CORRIDOR CORPORATION ANDORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petitioners, being tenants, are entitled to the compensation of Rs.14,17,000 each with interest as per Section 80 of the 2013 Act, and DFCCIL's reliance on the Entitlement Matrix and Government Resolution is untenable.
Summary
The petitioners were tenants in structures acquired by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd (DFCCIL) for a freight corridor project. Although the Deputy Commissioner (Rehabilitation) had determined a compensation of Rs.14,17,000 for each petitioner on 06‑11‑2025, DFCCIL later halted the disbursement, relying on a 2015 Entitlement Matrix and a 2018 Government Resolution. The petitioners contended that, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, tenants are expressly included in the definition of "affected family" and are therefore entitled to the compensation. The Court examined the statutory provisions, particularly Sections 3(c), 31 and 80 of the 2013 Act, and held that the Act supersedes the Entitlement Matrix and the State resolution. Consequently, the Court ordered DFCCIL to pay the determined compensation along with interest as prescribed under Section 80. The writ petitions were allowed, directing timely disbursement of the amounts and calculation of interest.
Issues considered
- The eligibility of tenants as "affected families" entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether the 2015 Entitlement Matrix and the 2018 Government Resolution can override the statutory provisions of the 2013 Act.
- The quantum of interest payable for delayed compensation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- rehabilitation
- tenants
- compensation
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- interest
- writ petition
- DFCCIL
Judgment
1
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5707 OF 2026
Sanjay Baban Girhe …Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager Dedicated Frieght
Corridor Corporation and Others …Respondents
VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR
WITH
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date: 2026.09.22
17:43:42 +0530 WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 10930 OF 2026
Heena Suhas Niromkar …Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager Dedicated Frieght
Corridor Corporation and Others …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2026
Vijaykumar Subedar Mourya …Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager Dedicated Frieght
Corridor Corporation and Others …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5956 OF 2026
Rajendra Muktaji Shinde …Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager Dedicated Frieght
Corridor Corporation and Others …Respondents
Vishal Parekar ….1
2
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5903 OF 2026
Vandana Ulhas Girhe …Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager Dedicated Frieght
Corridor Corporation and Others …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 12777 OF 2026
Mahesh Mahillappa Kallure …Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager Dedicated Frieght
Corridor Corporation and Others …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6064 OF 2026
Sambhaji Shivhar Mule …Petitioner
Versus
The Chief General Manager Dedicated Frieght
Corridor Corporation and Others …Respondents
Mr. Ramdas Sabban a/w. Mr. Pravin Sabban i/b. Randive & Kadam
Associates, for the Petitioners.
Mr. R.J. Deshmukh a/w. Mr. S.C. Surana, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G.P. a/w. Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP for the State in
WP No. 5707 of 2026.
Smt. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP for the State in WPST No. 10930 of 2026.
Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP for the State in WP no. 6100 of 2026.
Smt. Pooja Patil, AGP for the State in WP No. 5956 of 2026.
Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the State in WP No. 5903 of 2026.
Smt. Tanu Bhatia, AGP for the State in WPST No. 12777 of 2026
Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for the State in WP No. 6064 of 2026.
Vishal Parekar ….2
3
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
------------
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Manish Pitale, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties. The petitions were taken up for
hearing and disposal.
2. The Petitioners were tenants in structures that were acquired by
the Respondent Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India
Limited (DFCCIL) for the purpose of a Dedicated Freight Corridor
through Alibag, District Raigad.
3. The grievance of the Petitioners is that despite orders passed in
their favour confirming their eligibility in respect of their specific
tenements and order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation), Raigad-Alibag, determining monetary compensation
payable to each one of them, the said amounts have not been
disbursed in their favour till date.
4. It is highlighted that the Respondent DFCCIL itself had issued
instructions for disbursal of major part of the monetary compensation
Vishal Parekar ….3
4
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
to the Petitioners by issuing specific direction to the concerned bank,
but subsequently, directions were issued resulting in the disbursal of
the amounts being halted.
5. The chronology of events in brief leading to filing of these
petitions is that in the year 2021, the Petitioners approached the
Appellate Authority for Rehabilitation as members of affected families
or project-affected persons in respect of the said Dedicated Freight
Corridor Project, seeking directions for monetary compensation,
claiming to be eligible for the same. It is undisputed that possession of
the concerned structures was taken in the year 2021–2022.
6. On 16.06.2022, the said Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy
Commissioner (Rehabilitation), Konkan Division, passed orders in
favour of all the Petitioners, allowing their appeals and holding them
eligible for receiving compensation. In the said orders, reference was
made to Government Resolution dated 22.05.2018 issued by the
Respondent State Government as regards the scheme or mechanism
for disbursal of such compensation to affected persons.
7. The Respondent No. 1 DFCCIL filed review applications against
the said orders of the Appellate Authority. The review applications
Vishal Parekar ….4
5
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
were rejected, and the said orders confirming the eligibility of the
Petitioners remained unaffected.
8. In this backdrop, Respondent No. 2 i.e. the District
Rehabilitation Officer for the aforesaid project, submitted a proposal
to the State seeking approval for disbursal of monetary compensation
to the Petitioners and eventually, on 06.11.2025, the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) as Administrator for Rehabilitation concerning the
aforesaid project passed a reasoned order determining the amount of
monetary compensation payable to the Petitioners as Rs. 14,17,000/-
each.
9. In this backdrop, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 informed the
concerned bank regarding the requirement for disbursal of the
amounts to the Petitioners. As a matter of fact, by communication
dated 06.11.2025, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 even directed transfer of
major portion of the amount i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- each, by RTGS
transfer in favour of the Petitioners.
10. But, on 24.11.2025, the Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Project
Manager of DFCCIL concerning the said project, sent a letter to
Respondent No. 2, District Rehabilitation Officer, taking a stand
Vishal Parekar ….5
6
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
completely contrary to the aforementioned actions jointly undertaken
by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was claimed that the Petitioners, being
tenants, were eligible only for written notice of three months and an
amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards shifting allowance. In this regard,
reliance appears to have been placed on an Entitlement Matrix for
such projects based on Relief and Rehabilitation Plan of the
Respondent DFCCIL of September 2012.
11. On 08.12.2025, the Respondent No. 2 sent a letter to
Respondent No. 3 i.e. Project Manager of Respondent DFCCIL, stating
that the State Government had already approved the eligibility of the
Petitioners and their right to disbursal of the aforesaid monetary
compensation. Despite the aforesaid communication, the Respondent
DFCCIL failed to disburse the aforesaid amounts in favour of the
Petitioners. In this backdrop, on 05.03.2026, the Petitioners were
constrained to send legal notice to the said Respondents, and
thereafter, the writ petitions were filed in April 2026.
12. On 05.05.2026, this Court issued notice in the writ petitions.
The Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 filed their reply affidavits in the writ
petition. The principal ground for opposing the reliefs claimed in the
writ petitions was reliance placed by the said Respondents on a letter
Vishal Parekar ….6
7
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
dated 23.05.2015 sent by Director Planning (Special) of the Ministry
of Railways (Railway Board), Government of India, to the Managing
Director of Respondent DFCCIL.
13. The said communication granted approval to Entitlement Matrix
for such Dedicated Freight Corridor Projects based on the September
2012 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan of the said Respondent. By
placing reliance upon the same, the stand taken in the aforementioned
letter dated 24.11.2025 was sought to be justified.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in these
petitions submitted that the Respondent DFCCIL has acted in a most
arbitrary manner by refusing disbursal of the aforesaid amounts of
compensation duly determined by the competent authority in favour
of the Petitioners. It is submitted that the said Respondent cannot be
permitted to rely upon the aforementioned Entitlement Matrix of
2015, as the same is in the teeth of the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of
2013”). Specific reliance was placed on Sections 3(c)(ii)) and 31 read
with Schedule II of the Act of 2013, to claim that the Petitioners, being
covered under the definition of "affected family" as tenants in the
Vishal Parekar ….7
8
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
structures, are clearly entitled to the aforesaid compensation. It was
submitted that the Respondent DFCCIL is not justified in relying upon
Government Resolution dated 22.05.2018 issued by the Respondent
State Government, as the said Government Resolution itself records
that if higher compensation is found to be payable under the Act of
2013, the same shall be disbursed to the affected persons. It was
submitted that therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed, and
a specific direction may be issued for disbursal of the amounts already
determined as per order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the competent
authority i.e. the Respondent No. 2, alongwith interest.
15. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 i.e.
the competent authority, submitted that the provisions of the Act of
2013 are clear with regard to the definition of “affected families” and
as to the manner in which rehabilitation compensation is to be
computed and disbursed in favour of eligible persons. In that light, the
order dated 06.11.2025 followed the statutory mandate. Attention of
this Court was invited to paragraph 6 of the Government Resolution
dated 22.05.2018 to highlight the State policy that in the event the
relief under the Act of 2013 is higher, such higher relief ought to be
given to the affected persons.
Vishal Parekar ….8
9
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
16. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent DFCCIL relied upon the contents of the reply affidavit and
particularly the aforesaid letter dated 23.05.2015 sent by the
Government of India through Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) to
the Managing Director of DFCCIL. It was submitted that the
Entitlement Matrix of 2015 in turn referred to the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Plan of September 2012 of DFCCIL, wherein policy was
laid down for entitlement of compensation for lessees and tenants. It
was submitted that the same was reflected in the said letter dated
24.11.2025, sent by Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Project Manager of
DFCCIL to the Respondent No. 2, competent authority. It was stated
that since specific amount was already paid to the owners of the
structures in which the Petitioners were tenants, they would not be
eligible for the amounts determined by the competent authority in the
order dated 06.11.2025.
17. Reliance was also placed on certain portions of Government
Resolution dated 22.05.2018 to contend that since the structures were
located on Gaothan land, second schedule of the said Government
Resolution applied, thereby showing that only the owner of the
structure was eligible for compensation. On this basis, it was
Vishal Parekar ….9
10
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
submitted that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
18. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion
that the statutory mandate, as to the manner in which eligible persons
can be rehabilitated under the provisions of the Act of 2013, needs to
be appreciated in the correct perspective. In that context, the
following provisions of the Act of 2013 are relevant :
Sections 3(c) : affected family includes—
(i) a family whose land or other immovable property has been
acquired;
(ii) a family which does not own any land but a member or
members of such family may be agricultural labourers, tenants
including any form of tenancy or holding of usufruct right,
share-croppers or artisans or who may be working in the
affected area for three years prior to the acquisition of the land,
whose primary source of livelihood stand affected by the
acquisition of land;
(iii) the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
who have lost any of their forest rights recognised under the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) due to
acquisition of land;
(iv) family whose primary source of livelihood for three years
prior to the acquisition of the land is dependent on forests or
water bodies and includes gatherers of forest produce, hunters,
fisher folk and boatmen and such livelihood is affected due to
acquisition of land;
(v) a member of the family who has been assigned land by the
State Government or the Central Government under any of its
schemes and such land is under acquisition;
(vi) a family residing on any land in the urban areas for
preceding three years or more prior to the acquisition of the
land or whose primary source of livelihood for three years prior
to the acquisition of the land is affected by the acquisition of
such land;
Vishal Parekar ….10
11
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
Section 31 : Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award for
affected families by Collector–
(1) The Collector shall pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Awards for each affected family in terms of the entitlements
provided in the Second Schedule.
(2) The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award shall include all
of the following, namely:
(a) rehabilitation and resettlement amount payable to the family;
(b) bank account number of the person to which the
rehabilitation and resettlement award amount is to be
transferred;
(c) particulars of house site and house to be allotted, in case of
displaced families;
(d) particulars of land allotted to the displaced families;
(e) particulars of one time subsistence allowance and
transportation allowance in case of displaced families;
(f ) particulars of payment for cattle shed and petty shops;
(g) particulars of one-time amount to artisans and small traders;
(h) details of mandatory employment to be provided to the
members of the affected families;
(i) particulars of any fishing rights that may be involved;
(j) particulars of annuity and other entitlements to be provided;
(k) particulars of special provisions for the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes to be provided:
Provided that in case any of the matters specified under
clauses (a) to (k) are not applicable to any affected family the
same shall be indicated as ―not applicable.
Provided further that the appropriate Government may, by
notification increase the rate of rehabilitation and resettlement
amount payable to the affected families, taking into account the
rise in the price index.
19. The above-quoted provisions are to be read with Schedule II
appended to the Act of 2013, which provides for the Elements of
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Entitlements for all the Affected
Families, in addition to those provided in the First Schedule.”
Vishal Parekar ….11
12
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
20. A perusal of the definition of "affected family" given in Section
3(c), quoted hereinabove, shows that in clause (ii) thereof, tenants,
including any form of tenancy, are specifically covered. It is
undisputed that the Petitioners were tenants in the subject structures
that were acquired by the Respondent DFCCIL. Therefore, they are
entitled to be compensated under the provisions of the Act of 2013,
applying Schedule II to the said Act.
21. As a matter of fact, in the order dated 06.11.2025, Respondent
No. 2 competent authority referred to the relevant provisions of the
Act of 2013 and came to a considered conclusion that each of the
Petitioners was entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,17,000/- towards
compensation. The eligibility of the Petitioners was already decided as
per orders passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy
Commissioner (Rehabilitation), on 16.06.2022. The review
applications filed by DFCCIL to seek review of the said orders of the
Appellate Authority were rejected, and the said orders were
confirmed.
22. In such a situation, we are of the opinion that there could be no
impediment for disbursal of the aforesaid compensation amount in
favour of the Petitioners. The objection raised by DFCCIL itself appears
Vishal Parekar ….12
13
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
to be belated, because Respondent No. 1, being the Chief General
Manager of DFCCIL, jointly with Respondent No. 2 i.e. the competent
authority, had issued instructions to the concerned bank to disburse
major portion of the compensation amounts through RTGS into the
bank accounts of the Petitioners. It is at this belated stage that the
aforesaid communication dated 24.11.2025 was issued by Respondent
No. 3 i.e. Project Manager of DFCCIL, addressed to the Respondent
No. 2 competent authority, for the first time raising objection and
placing reliance on the aforementioned Entitlement Matrix of 2015
based on the Relief and Rehabilitation Plan of September 2012 of
DFCCIL. In that context, reliance was also placed on GR dated
22.05.2018 of the Respondent State.
23. We are of the opinion that instructions such as the aforesaid
letter dated 23.05.2015 issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Railways (Railway Board), cannot override the statutory provisions
of the Act of 2013. Such instructions cannot prevail upon the statutory
provisions, and therefore, reliance placed on the same on the part of
Respondent DFCCIL cannot be sustained.
24. The attempt made on the part of Respondent DFCCIL to then
rely upon Government Resolution dated 22.05.2018 can also not be
Vishal Parekar ….13
14
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
sustained, simply for the reason that the Respondent State in
paragraph 6 of the said Government Resolution has specified, as per
settled law, that higher relief or compensation payable to eligible
persons under the Act of 2013 would always prevail. This is in line
with Section 108 of the Act of 2013, which refers to the option to the
affected families to avail better compensation and rehabilitation and
resettlement. Therefore, the Respondent DFCCIL is not justified in
relying upon second schedule mentioned in the Government
Resolution dated 22.05.2018.
25. Hence, we find that the grounds raised on behalf of Respondent
DFCCIL in its reply affidavit and documents filed therewith to deny
the Petitioners their rightful due are not justified. The arguments
raised on behalf of Respondent DFCCIL are rejected, and it is found
that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
26. In the prayers made in the writ petitions, the Petitioners have
claimed a direction for disbursal of the aforesaid amount of
compensation of Rs. 14,17,000/- each within a time-bound manner,
along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
27. We are of the opinion that even as per the statutory mandate in
Vishal Parekar ….14
15
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
terms of Section 80 of the Act of 2013, the interest payable for
delayed payment is at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from
the date of taking possession, and 15% from the second year onwards.
28. We are of the opinion that in the light of Respondent DFCCIL
having taken an unreasonable stand belatedly and having deprived
the Petitioners of their rightful dues in an unjustified manner, the
statutory interest prescribed in Section 80 of the Act of 2013 should be
paid on the said amount of Rs. 14,17,000/- payable to each of the
Petitioners.
29. We are inclined to issue such a direction in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case, for the reason that the
documents show that when Respondent No. 1 i.e. the Chief General
Manager of Respondent DFCCIL, jointly with Respondent No. 2
competent authority, had even directed substantial portion of the
amount i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- each, to be disbursed by RTGS to the
Petitioners. But, suddenly a different stand was taken and objection
was raised with regard to disbursal of the amounts of compensation in
favour of the Petitioners. It is for this reason that we are inclined to
invoke Section 80 of the Act of 2013 to issue the direction of payment
of interest on the said amounts to the Petitioners.
Vishal Parekar ….15
16
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
30. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a) of each of the writ petitions, with the modification
that interest shall be payable in terms of the observations made
hereinabove under Section 80 of the Act of 2013.
31. Thus, each of the Petitioners shall be paid amounts of Rs.
14,17,000/- each, along with interest at the aforesaid rate.
32. Since the basic amounts of Rs. 14,17,000/- each were already
deposited by Respondent DFCCIL, such amounts shall be disbursed to
the Petitioners at the earliest and in any case within two weeks. The
amounts towards interest payable to each of the Petitioners in terms of
the directions given hereinabove will have to be calculated. The
Respondent No. 2 competent authority is directed to make such
calculations within a period of four weeks from today.
33. The Respondent No. 2 competent authority shall then
communicate the said amounts towards interest to Respondent Nos. 1
and 3 i.e. the Chief General Manager and the Project Manager of
DFCCIL respectively, within one week thereafter.
34. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall ensure that the amounts
towards interest in terms of the calculation shall be deposited with the
Vishal Parekar ….16
17
22-wp-5707-2026.doc
competent authority within two weeks. Upon receipt of the said
amounts, the Respondent No. 2 shall in turn disburse the said
amounts to the Petitioners within one week thereafter.
35. Rule made absolute in above terms.
36. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ….17
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.