IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.13826 of 2006 ==================================================== PRAHALAD SINGH @PRAHLAD MAHTO, Son of late Nokhi Singh, resident of village Bharpura, P.S. Sonepur, District Saran - Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur 2. The General Manager (P), East Central Railway, Hajipur 3. The Divisional Rail Manager (P), D.R.M. Office, Sonepur 4. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Saran, Chapra 5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saran, Chapra - Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. AWADHESH KR.SINGH For the State : MR. R.K. PRIYADARSHI, A.C. TO AAG3 For the Railways : Mr. SUDHIR SINGH ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN --------- 2 11.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as well the learned counsel appearing for the Railways. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite of the policy decision of the Railway that in case of a person or of a Hindu Undivided Family, whose land situated at the northern side of the river Ganges, has been acquired for the purposes of Railway Ganga 2 Bridge, then apart from compensation for the land, employment of such person or one person from Hindu Undivided Family would be given by the Railway, the petitioner has not been provided any employment. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State as well as Railway authorities . It is common stand that the Railway has come up with such policy subject to fulfillment of the guidelines which has been brought on record as Annexure F to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Apart from other guidelines, one is that one of the family whose minimum 50% of total land or 0.2 Acre, which ever is less, has been acquired or whose residential accommodation is acquired shall be treated to have been physically displaced or livelihood materially been affected and in that case employment would be given to one person from the family. There are other guidelines also that stands spelt out in the Annexure F itself. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner’s representation was sent to the Railway authority. However, learned counsel appearing for the 3 Railway submits that unless, in view of the fact that all the land records with respect to the land acquisition are in the possession of the State authorities, in the absence any positive recommendation by the competent State Authority that the petitioner’s case is covered under the guidelines as contained in Annexure F, Railway will have difficulty in taking a decision with regard to petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the Railways further submits that, in case after such scrutiny by the State Authority, the petitioner is found entitled and his name is forwarded to the Railway authorities for the purpose of appointment, Railways would not have any difficulty in giving employment to the petitioner. On this point learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there would be no difficulty in scrutinizing the case of the petitioner by the Collector of the District. In above view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner would not have any objection to make a fresh representation before the Collector concerned giving all the details his lands which have been acquired by the State and 4 also the copy of the award and other necessary documents in support of his case to show that he is covered under the guidelines. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the parties this order is being passed in presence of all the parties and upon their consent. The petitioner would be at liberty to file such representation as mentioned above within eight weeks before the Collector, Saran at Chapra, who shall consider the same in accordance with law and the guidelines of the Railways which have been appended as Annexure F to the counter affidavit of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and scrutinize the same with regard to entitlement of the petitioner, forward the representation of the petitioner to the Railway authorities with his finding within six weeks from the date of filing of the representation. In case a positive recommendation / forwarding is made by the Collector then the Railway authorities shall take a decision to appoint the petitioner within six months thereafter. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is not found entitled then the concerned authority will pass a reasoned order and 5 communicate the same to the petitioner. This disposes of the writ petition. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)