The Applicability of Section 94 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to Acquisitions under the Railways Act, 1989 for Infrastructure Intersections

Executive Summary

The modernization of India’s infrastructure landscape frequently necessitates the intersection of linear projects, such as railway corridors crossing existing National Highways. This interface creates complex legal challenges regarding land acquisition, particularly when the acquisition of a portion of land for a specific structure—such as a railway overbridge—renders the residual unacquired land economically or physically unusable due to statutory margin or setback requirements.

This report provides an exhaustive, expert-level analysis of the legal position concerning the applicability of Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) to land acquisition proceedings initiated under Chapter IV-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The specific factual matrix involves an acquisition by the Railways for constructing a bridge over an NHAI (National Highways Authority of India) highway, where the “margin requirements” (building lines/control lines) imposed by the new infrastructure effectively sterilize the utility of the remaining private land.

The analysis synthesizes statutory texts, the Removal of Difficulties Order (2015), judicial precedents from the Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court of India, and administrative Entitlement Matrices of various railway corporations. It establishes that while Section 94 serves as a procedural safeguard against partial acquisition of “houses, manufactories, or buildings,” its direct application to “open land” under the special Railways Act is jurisprudentially complex. However, the report concludes that the doctrine of injurious affection, codified in Section 20F of the Railways Act and reinforced by the compensation principles of the RFCTLARR Act, provides a substantive remedy equivalent to Section 94. This remedy mandates that if the residual land is rendered useless by the acquisition (even via regulatory margins), the acquiring authority must compensate the landowner for the full diminution in value, effectively amounting to the market value of the entire plot.

1. Introduction: The Convergence of Infrastructure and Private Property

The genesis of this inquiry lies in the inevitable friction between the sovereign power of Eminent Domain and the constitutional right to property (Article 300A). In the context of the user’s query, this friction is exacerbated by the overlapping regulatory regimes of the Indian Railways and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). When a railway project intersects a highway, it requires land not just for the physical footprint of the bridge piers or embankments, but also imposes a “regulatory shadow”—a zone of non-construction or margin—on the adjacent land to ensure structural safety and future expansion utility.

1.1 The Core Legal Problem: Regulatory Sterilization

The central grievance identified is the phenomenon of “regulatory sterilization.” The landowner faces a situation where the Railways acquire a specific portion of land for the bridge structure. Theoretically, the landowner retains title to the remaining portion. However, due to the margin requirements mandated by the new bridge (under Railway safety standards) and the existing or modified highway setbacks (under the National Highways Act, 1956), the remaining land becomes legally unbuildable. It is “useless” in an economic sense, yet technically remains in the owner’s possession.

The query seeks to determine if the landowner can invoke Section 94 of the RFCTLARR Act to compel the Railways to acquire this “useless” residue, thereby receiving full compensation rather than being left with a phantom asset.

1.2 The Conflict of Statutes

The legal complexity arises from the interaction of two distinct statutes:

1. The Railways Act, 1989: A “Special Act” containing a self-contained code for land acquisition in Chapter IV-A.
2. The RFCTLARR Act, 2013: A “General Act” intended to provide a uniform, humane, and transparent framework for land acquisition across India.

The critical question is whether the procedural right contained in Section 94 of the General Act pierces the protective veil of the Special Act, especially given that the Railways Act is exempted under the Fourth Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act.

2. The Statutory Architecture: Railways Act vs. RFCTLARR Act

To understand the enforceability of Section 94, one must first deconstruct the legislative hierarchy and the mechanisms that bridge these two statutes.

2.1 The Railways Act, 1989: A Special Code for “Special Railway Projects”

Prior to 2008, railway land acquisition was largely conducted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, to expedite critical projects like the Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) and Metro Rails, Parliament enacted the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008, introducing Chapter IV-A.

Key Provisions of Chapter IV-A:

• Section 20A (Power to Acquire): This section empowers the Central Government to declare its intention to acquire land for a “Special Railway Project” via notification. It is analogous to Section 4 of the 1894 Act but streamlined.
• Section 20F (Determination of Compensation): This section outlines the criteria for compensation. Crucially, prior to 2015, this section did not mandate the high solatium (100%) or rehabilitation benefits found in the 2013 Act.
• Section 20N (Exclusion of General Law): This section explicitly states: “The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall not apply to an acquisition under this Act.”. This exclusionary clause is vital. It establishes the Railways Act as a complete code, theoretically insulating it from general land acquisition laws unless explicitly incorporated.

2.2 The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the Fourth Schedule Exemption

When the RFCTLARR Act repealed the 1894 Act, it sought to create a unified regime. However, Parliament recognized that certain infrastructure sectors required agility. Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act created an exemption mechanism:

“Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.”.

The Railways Act, 1989 is listed at Entry 13 of the Fourth Schedule. This means that, by default, the procedural and substantive provisions of the RFCTLARR Act—including Section 94—do not apply to railway acquisitions.

2.3 The Harmonizing Bridge: Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015

The exemption under Section 105 created a disparity where landowners acquired under the Railways Act received significantly less compensation than those under the RFCTLARR Act. To rectify this violation of Article 14 (Equality), the Central Government exercised its powers under Section 105(3) and Section 113 to issue the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015.

Text of the Order:

“The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule…”.

2.4 The Interpretative Lacuna regarding Section 94

The 2015 Order is precise. It extends the Schedules (I, II, and III) to the Railways Act. It does not explicitly extend the procedural sections of the main Act unless they are inextricably linked to compensation determination.

Section 94 is titled “Acquisition of part of house or building” and is located in Chapter IX (Apportionment of Compensation) of the RFCTLARR Act.

• The Argument for Exclusion: The Railways Act has its own objection hearing mechanism (Section 20D). Section 94 acts as a bar on acquisition (“shall not be put in force”). Since the “procedure of acquisition” under the Railways Act is preserved by Section 105, Section 94 might be argued as inapplicable.
• The Argument for Inclusion: Section 94 is a safeguard that defines what must be compensated (the whole vs. the part). It is substantive in nature, shielding the owner from holding a useless asset. Therefore, it falls within the spirit of “determination of compensation” mandated by the 2015 Order.

3. Deep Analysis of Section 94 of RFCTLARR Act: Scope and Applicability

To advise the landowner, we must scrutinize the text of Section 94 of RFCTLARR Act to see if it fits the facts of “margin land” created by a bridge.

3.1 Textual Anatomy of Section 94

Section 94(1) reads:

“The provisions of this Act shall not be put in force for the purpose of acquiring a part only of any house, manufactory or other building, if the owner desires that the whole of such house, manufactory or building shall be so acquired…”.

Key Limitation: The section explicitly mentions “house, manufactory or other building.” It does not explicitly mention “agricultural land” or “open plots”. This is a critical distinction.

• Legislative History: This mirrors Section 49 of the 1894 Act. Historically, courts have interpreted Section 49 strictly. In State of Bihar v. Kundan Singh, the Supreme Court held that the right to compel total acquisition applies only to structures, not to large tracts of agricultural land where a part is taken.

3.2 The “Integral Part” Doctrine & “Open Land”

While the text says “building,” judicial interpretation has expanded this to include land that is “integral” to the enjoyment of the building.

• Case Law: In Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala , the Kerala High Court held that “building” includes the land appurtenant to it (courtyards, necessary open spaces).
• Application to the User: If the “margin land” in question is the compound of a house, or a factory yard, Section 94 applies with full force. However, if the land is a vacant agricultural plot or an open commercial plot without a structure, the strict textual application of Section 94 is weak. The Railways may argue that Section 94 does not empower a landowner to compel the acquisition of vacant land merely because it becomes unbuildable.

3.3 The “Full and Unimpaired Use” Test

Section 94(2) mandates that the Authority shall decide whether the land proposed to be taken is “reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the house, manufactory or building”.

• Relevance to Bridge Construction: If the Railway bridge cuts through a factory premises, rendering the remaining “margin land” too narrow for fire engine access or logistical movement, the “manufactory” is impaired. In such cases, Section 94 compels the acquisition of the entire factory, including the land.
• The “Open Land” Gap: For open land, there is no “use of the house” to impair. The injury is the loss of potential use (future construction). This injury is typically addressed not by Section 94 (compelled acquisition), but by severance damages (compensation).

4. The “Margin Requirement”: Regulatory Taking and Compensation

The user’s specific problem is that the “margin requirement” makes the land unusable. This requires an analysis of how margin rules operate and how they interact with compensation law.

4.1 Understanding the “Double Margin” Impact

The construction of a Railway bridge over an NHAI highway creates a unique regulatory overlap:

1. NHAI Control Lines: Under the National Highways Act, 1956, distinct zones exist—Right of Way (ROW), Building Lines, and Control Lines. Construction is prohibited in the ROW and heavily restricted between the Building and Control lines (often 40m to 75m from the center).
2. Railway Safety Margins: The Railways Act empowers the administration to clear obstructions and mandates setbacks for structural stability and electrification clearance.
3. The Sterilization Effect: When the Railway acquires land for the bridge piers/embankment, the physical footprint is taken. However, the legal setback lines often shift inward into the private property from the new boundary. If the remaining plot depth is less than the required setback (e.g., a 10m strip left where the setback is 15m), the land becomes “sterile”—owned by the individual but usable by no one.

4.2 The Doctrine of Injurious Affection

The legal remedy for this “sterilization” is found in the Doctrine of Injurious Affection. This doctrine mandates compensation for the depreciation in the value of the retained land caused by the acquisition and the user of the acquired land.

Statutory Basis in Railways Act: Section 20F(6) of the Railways Act, 1989 (mirrored in Section 28 of RFCTLARR Act) requires the Arbitrator/Competent Authority to consider:

“Thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;”. “Fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained… by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any other manner, or his earnings;”.

4.3 Margin Land as “Injurious Affection”

The Gujarat High Court, in Jyoti Warehousing v. State of Gujarat , dealt with a similar issue regarding NHAI margin lands. The Court held that even “margin lands” have value (for FSI calculations, parking, or open space requirements).

• Implication: If the acquisition creates a margin situation where none existed (or worsens it), the loss of buildable area is a direct consequence of the acquisition.
• Calculation: The compensation for this “useless” margin land should ideally be 100% of its market value.

• Scenario A (Compelled Acquisition): Railway takes title, pays 100%. (Section 94 approach).
• Scenario B (Injurious Affection): Owner keeps title, Railway pays 100% as “damages.” (Section 20F approach).
• Result: Financially, the outcome is identical. The courts generally prefer Scenario B for open land, as it avoids the state becoming the owner of fragmented, useless strips of land.

5. Case Law Analysis: Judicial Trends in Gujarat and India

Given the references to the Gujarat High Court in the research material, analyzing the specific judicial trend in this jurisdiction is vital for the user’s “position of law.”

5.1 The Jigarbhai Amratbhai Patel Precedent

In Jigarbhai Amratbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2019), a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court adjudicated the validity of land acquisition for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail (a Railway project).

• The Challenge: Petitioners challenged the state amendment exempting the project from Social Impact Assessment (SIA).
• The Verdict: The Court upheld the exemption but emphatically stated that the compensation and rehabilitation benefits of the Central RFCTLARR Act must flow to the landowners.
• Relevance: This judgment solidifies the position that while procedural shortcuts (like skipping SIA) are permitted for Railway projects in Gujarat, any interpretation that reduces the financial entitlement of the landowner (like denying compensation for useless margin land) would likely be struck down as violative of the “fair compensation” mandate.

5.2 State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas & Town Planning

The research snippets highlight the Shantilal Mangaldas case. This case distinguished between “Town Planning” (where land is pooled and redistributed, often without full compensation for margins) and “Land Acquisition” (Eminent Domain).

• Distinction: The user’s case is acquisition under the Railways Act, not a Town Planning Scheme. Therefore, the restrictive compensation rules of Town Planning Acts (which often deny compensation for margins) do not apply. The Railway must pay full market value for the injury caused.

5.3 Judicial View on “Useless Fragments”

Courts have consistently held that leaving a landowner with a “useless fragment” constitutes a violation of Article 300A. In Smt. Narangat v. State of Punjab, the court noted that if the unacquired portion is rendered unfit for cultivation or construction, the state is liable to pay for the entire holding as if it were acquired.

6. Project-Specific Regulations: The Entitlement Matrix

While statutory law is abstract, the administrative “Entitlement Matrices” (EM) adopted by Railway entities often provide the specific “position of law” applied on the ground. These matrices often go beyond the statutory minimum to avoid litigation.

6.1 The “Haryana Orbital Rail Corridor” (HORC) Precedent

The research identifies the Haryana Orbital Rail Corridor (HORC) Project, implemented by a Railway SPV. Its Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) explicitly adopts Section 94:

“In case only a part of any land plot is affected and its owner desires that the whole plot be acquired, the competent authority may make additional award as per Section 94 of RFCTLARR 2013 for the remaining part of land without initiating the land acquisition process afresh.”.

Significance: This proves that Railway projects can and do administratively adopt Section 94, effectively waiving the “Fourth Schedule” immunity.

6.2 The “Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail” (Bullet Train) Matrix

For the Bullet Train project (Gujarat/Maharashtra), the Entitlement Matrix takes a slightly different approach regarding “severance”:

“One-time additional assistance equal to 25% of the market value of the land.”. “The ownership of remaining land area on either side shall continue to remain with the land owner.”.

The Conflict: Here, instead of acquiring the useless land (Section 94), the Railway authority pays a 25% “top-up” as severance assistance.

• Implication for User: If the user’s project follows the HORC model, they can demand full acquisition. If it follows the Bullet Train model, they might only be offered 25% extra, which may be insufficient if the land is 100% useless.
• Legal Strategy: If offered only 25%, the user can challenge this in the Authority/High Court, arguing that 25% does not cover the actual damage (which is 100% loss of utility), violating Section 20F of the Railways Act.

6.3 Gujarat Govt. Resolution LAQ-22-2014/54/5

This resolution, cited in the context of the Bullet Train, facilitates “Consent Awards”. It allows for negotiated settlement.

• Application: If the user agrees to a Consent Award, they can negotiate the inclusion of the margin land’s value into the “consented amount.” The Railway officer has more flexibility in a Consent Award (Section 23A) to include the “useless” land’s value to close the deal than in a formal statutory award.

7. Strategic Synthesis: The Position of Law

Based on the synthesis of the Railways Act, RFCTLARR Act, 2015 Order, and case law, the position of law regarding the user’s query is as follows:

7.1 Does Section 94 Apply Automatically?

Strictly speaking, No. Because the Railways Act is in the Fourth Schedule, and Section 94 is a procedural restriction on the power to acquire (not just a calculation method), it is not automatically imported by the 2015 Order. Furthermore, Section 94 textually applies to “buildings,” making its application to “open margin land” legally vulnerable.

7.2 Is there an Equivalent Remedy?

Yes, Absolutely. The Doctrine of Injurious Affection under Section 20F(6) of the Railways Act (read with Section 28 of RFCTLARR Act via the 2015 Order) provides a substantive remedy that is functionally equivalent to Section 94 for open land.

• The Mechanism: Instead of forcing the Railway to take the title of the margin land (Section 94), the law forces the Railway to pay damages for the loss of utility of that land.
• The Quantum: If the margin requirement makes the land 100% useless, the “damage” is 100% of the market value.

7.3 Data Representation: Comparison of Legal Remedies

The following table outlines the comparative legal pathways available to the landowner:

Feature	Section 94 (RFCTLARR)	Section 20F (Railways Act)	Consent Award (Sec 23A Gujarat)
Trigger	“Owner desires” whole acquisition.	“Damage sustained” by severance/injury.	Mutual agreement/Negotiation.
Applicability to Open Land	Low. Text specifies “House/Building”.	High. Applies to “other land” explicitly.	High. Flexible scope.
Remedy Type	Transfer of Title (Acquisition).	Financial Compensation (Damages).	Lump Sum Payment.
Burden of Proof	Must prove land is “part of house”.	Must prove “diminution in value”.	Negotiation leverage.
Outcome	Railway owns the margin land.	User owns land, but gets full value.	User receives negotiated value.

8. Conclusion and Actionable Recommendations

8.1 Conclusions

1. Legislative Position: The acquisition is governed by the Railways Act, 1989. The substantive compensation benefits of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 apply via the 2015 Order.
2. Section 94 Applicability: While Section 94 is not automatically applicable to open land under the Railways Act, its underlying principle—that a landowner should not be left with a useless fragment—is fully enforceable through Section 20F(6) (Injurious Affection).
3. Margin Land Status: The “margin” created by the NHAI bridge is a compensable injury. The Railway Administration cannot hide behind NHAI regulations to deny compensation; the Railway’s project caused the new margin constraint.

8.2 Roadmap for the Landowner

The position of law supports the landowner’s claim for financial relief, though the specific route may be “Severance Damages” rather than “Section 94 Acquisition.”

1. Document the Sterilization: Obtain a technical report from a registered valuer or architect certifying that the remaining land is “unbuildable” due to the specific margin/setback lines of the new bridge and highway.
2. Submit Claim under Section 20F: File a formal objection/claim with the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) under Section 20F of the Railways Act. Explicitly claim “Severance and Injurious Affection Damages” amounting to the full market value of the margin land.
3. Cite Administrative Precedents: Refer to the Haryana Orbital Rail Corridor RPF and Gujarat Bullet Train Entitlement Matrix to argue that Railways have an established policy of compensating for such losses (either via acquisition or 25% assistance).
4. Consent Route: If the CALA is hesitant to apply Section 94, propose a Consent Award (under Gujarat Amendment Section 23A) that includes the value of the margin land. This is often the fastest resolution as it avoids the rigid statutory interpretation of “part of house.”
5. Judicial Recourse: If the Authority refuses compensation for the margin land, a Writ Petition in the High Court is a strong option. Courts typically follow the principle that “deprivation of utility is deprivation of property,” compelling the authority to pay.

In summary, while the form of Section 94 may be contested by the Railways for open land, the substance of the relief (full compensation for the useless land) is a robust right protected by the Railways Act’s own compensation provisions and the constitutional guarantee of fair compensation.