The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that minor children whose mother remarries after their father’s death do not constitute a separate “family” unit for the purpose of receiving rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCT-LARR Act). A Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta dismissed a writ petition filed by two petitioners, holding that upon their mother’s remarriage, they became part of their stepfather’s family unit, which had already received the applicable benefits as a single project-affected family.
Background of the Case
The case was brought by Km. Bhavna and another, whose father, Sunil Kumar, passed away in 2003. He was the owner of a 1/4th share in a parcel of land in Village Jadauda, District Muzaffar Nagar. At the time of his death, the petitioners were minors. Subsequently, their mother, Smt. Savita, remarried Anil Kumar, the brother of her late husband.
The Ministry of Railways issued a notification on January 16, 2015, under Section 20-A of the Railways Act, 1989, to acquire land, including the petitioners’ share, for the “Special Rail Project Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor.” Following the acquisition process, the Competent Authority declared compensation awards on July 30, 2016, and December 26, 2017. While compensation for the land was determined under the First Schedule of the RFCT-LARR Act, 2013, the petitioners contended they were denied a separate R&R award under the Second Schedule. They filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the declaration of such an award.
Arguments of the Petitioners
Shri Vinayak Mithal, counsel for the petitioners, argued that following the Central Government’s order dated August 28, 2015, all land acquisitions under acts listed in the Fourth Schedule (including the Railways Act) must provide for compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement as per the Schedules of the RFCT-LARR Act, 2013.
The petitioners’ counsel contended that since their mother had remarried, the petitioners constituted a separate family unit, distinct from their mother and stepfather, Anil Kumar. Referring to the definition of “family” under Section 3(m) of the Act, which provides that “widows, divorcees and women deserted by families shall be considered separate families,” he argued that the petitioners had an independent claim to R&R benefits. He submitted that the petitioners were facing extreme financial hardship and that the Competent Authority was legally bound to declare a separate R&R award for them as an “affected family” under Section 31 of the Act.
Arguments of the Respondents
Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, representing the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL), and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, representing the State, opposed the petition. They argued that at the time of the acquisition notification in 2015, the petitioners were minors and legally dependent on their stepfather, Anil Kumar.
The respondents submitted that the petitioners, their mother, and their stepfather constituted a single project-affected family. This family unit, headed by Anil Kumar, had already been paid the R&R benefits. They contended that while the petitioners rightly received their share of the land compensation under the First Schedule, they were not entitled to a separate R&R award under the Second Schedule.
Shri Mehrotra further argued that the petitioners had not provided any evidence to substantiate their claim that their livelihood was primarily dependent on the acquired land, a prerequisite for certain R&R benefits. He also noted that the DFCCIL project is “linear in nature, which does not provide any displacement of affected persons” in the conventional sense.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court meticulously analyzed the definitions of “affected family” under Section 3(c) and “family” under Section 3(m) of the RFCT-LARR Act, 2013. The Bench observed that the decisive factor is the status of the family at the time of the acquisition notification.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi noted, “In the light of the definition of ‘affected family’ and ‘family’ in Section 3 (c) and 3 (m), it is clear that at the time of notification under Section 20A of the Act, 1989 dated 16.01.2015, the petitioners being minor stood included in the family of Anil Kumar (step father), when their mother remarried to him.”
The Court distinguished the petitioners’ situation from a hypothetical one where their mother had remained a widow. In that case, the Court stated, “she would be entitled for rehabilitation and resettlement award as she would have an independent status under the definition of Section 3 (m), which also provided that widows, divorcees and women deserted by families shall be considered separate families.”
The judgment emphasized that the petitioners’ dependency automatically shifted to their stepfather upon their mother’s remarriage. The Court found, “The family was of his step father, mother and minor children.” It also noted that the petitioners had failed to produce any evidence to show they had attained majority at the time of the award declaration to claim an independent status.
Concluding that the authorities correctly treated the petitioners, their mother, and their stepfather as a single unit for the purpose of the R&R award, the Court found the petition devoid of merit.
“The petitioners have utterly failed to substantiate that they were having separate entity, which could be presumed to be a family,” the Court held, and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
