Private trains via the back door

Individuals can 'own' trains in the event of land acquisition disputes with Indian Railways

The assumption that a private individual cannot own a train is incorrect. Individuals can own trains and parts of railway stations — sort of. This is the story of Sampuran Singh of Katana village in Jalandhar district. The Chandigarh-Ludhiana railway line took many years to construct, having been first proposed in 1997-98. It was finally built in three phases — Chandigarh-New Morinda, Sanehwal-Ludhiana and New Morinda-Sanehwal. Land acquisition occurred between 1999 and 2002 and delays were primarily because of land acquisition problems and consequent litigation. There were hundreds of cases in lower courts and appeals in Punjab and Haryana High Court. Sampuran Singh owned 5.5 bighas of land and Indian Railways (IR) (that is, Northern Railway) acquired this in 2007. The landowner was paid Rs 25 lakh per acre. He wasn’t satisfied and went to court, as did several other landowners. The court ruled the compensation should be Rs 50 lakh per acre. Having heard both sides, the court doubled the compensation in January 2015. Briefly, IR should have paid Singh a compensation of Rs 1.47 crore. However, having paid 42 lakh, it sat on the remaining Rs 1.05 crore. An aggrieved Singh filed an execution petition in the Additional District and Sessions Court. If an entity doesn’t pay, a court is always entitled to attach its property.

New Delhi–Amritsar Swarna Shatabdi Express (train number 12029) runs between New Delhi and Amritsar. The rake is maintained by Northern Railway. The court ordered this rake to be attached. End-on generator cars (EOG) are expensive, as is the WAP 5 (or WAP 7) locomotive. Given the sum involved, the entire rake wasn’t necessary. EOGs and locomotives would have sufficed. But the judge was probably angry and wanted a punitive element to the order. Therefore, the court also attached one of the rooms in the Ludhiana station superintendent’s office. What will Singh do with this train? As a private individual, the Railways Act of 1989 doesn’t allow him to run it. Under court supervision, the rake and station superintendent’s room would have been auctioned off and we would have got to know market-based prices for such objects. However, IR has sought more time to pay. Coincidentally, today (April 7) is the last date. If IR doesn’t pay up by close of business today, there will be an auction, unless there is some extension.

TRAIN FOR LAND In the land acquisition case over the construction of the Chandigarh-Ludhiana railway line, a court awarded the New Delhi-Amritsar Swarna Shatabdi Express, which runs between New Delhi and Amritsar, to one of the litigants seeking compensation. PHOTO for representation purpose

This is by no means a bizarre and embarrassing aberration. IR has been down this route before. Land for the Chitradurga-Rayadurga line (a distance of 100 km) was acquired in 1986. As in the case of Singh, there were villagers dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, indeed, a clutch of them (around 50). In 1991, they approached the court and in 2015, the District Principal and Sessions Court ordered IR (South Western Railway) to pay Rs 1 crore as compensation to 50 farmers, within two months, that timeline of two months being suggested by IR itself. However, since IR didn’t comply, the court ordered seizure (in January 2016) of the Harihar-Chitradurga-Bengaluru passenger (train number 56520), no patch on a fancy Shatabdi though. A court bailiff turned up and the train was seized in February 2016. IR appealed and asked for another 45 days to settle.  Considering inconvenience to passengers, the train was released. Subsequently, in November 2016, the Karnataka High Court passed an order to the effect that lower courts should not attach rolling stock (locomotives, coaches) and other moveable railway property. There is a third case, too, from April 2015. In 1998, IR acquired land to build the Una-Chururu section of the Una-Talwara line. There was again a land compensation issue with two farmers. When IR didn’t pay, the additional district sessions judge ordered attachment of New Delhi-Una Janshatabdi Express (train number 12057). IR paid at the last minute and escaped attachment five minutes before the train was scheduled to leave Una.

It is difficult to understand such cases. One can understand contestation of claims and appeals. But since there weren’t any appeals, this is tantamount to contempt of court. Sure there is a Section 187 in the Railways Act. “Restriction on execution against railway property — (1) no rolling stock, machinery, plant, tools, fittings, materials or effects used or provided by a railway administration for the purpose of traffic on its railway, or of its stations or workshops, shall be liable to be taken in execution of any decree or order of any court or of any local authority or person having by law the power to attach or distrain property or otherwise to cause property to be taken in execution, without the previous sanction of the central government. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed to affect the authority of any court to attach the earnings of a railway in execution of a decree or order.” Does IR have blind faith in 187(1), thereby indulging in contempt? While there may be a grain of truth in this, I suspect it also has to do with decision-making structures within IR. Who builds new lines and takes care of land acquisition? The construction organisation of a zone, headed by the chief administrative officer (construction), reporting to the general manager of the zone. By the time a court has ruled, the line “belongs” to a division, headed by the divisional railway manager (DRM), who has almost no control over construction. DRM is asked to pay for something construction did. The latter’s liability leads to seizure of the former’s assets.

The writer is a member of the National Institution for Transforming India Aayog. The views are personal