2023:BHC-AS:12776-DB
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No.3393 OF 2023
Mr. Kisan Govind Sutar )
Age about 67 years, )
Occupation Farmer, Address at )
Vadval Tanbi, Post. Donvat, )
Tal. Khalapur, Dist. Raigad )...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra )
Through the Government Pleader )
High Court Appellate Side, Bombay )
2. The District Magistrate/Collector )
of Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )
3. The Revenue Minister, )
Revenue & Forest Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai -400 032 )
4. The Additional Collector of Raigad )
Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION No.3394 OF 2023
1. Kondiba Ramchandra Mane )
Age About 59 years )
Occupation Farmer, Address at )
Maldev, Post Ransai, Taluka Pen, )
Dist. Raigad )
Tikam page 1 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
1. Mr. Dhondiba Ramchandra Mane )
Age 57 years, Occupation Farmer )
Address at Maldev, Post Ransai, )
Taluka Pen, Dist. Raigad )...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra )
Through the Government Pleader )
High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay )
2. The District Magistrate/ Collector )
of Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )
3. The Revenue Minister, )
Revenue & Forest Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 )
4. The Additional Collector )
of Raigad, Raigad At Alibaug, )
Dist. Raigad )...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 3395 OF 2023
1. Mr. Gulab Dagdu Mujawar )
Age about 60 years, )
Occupation Farmer, Address at )
Aarav, Post Ransai, Tal. Pen, )
Dist. Raigad )
2. Mr. Shaukat Dagdu Mujawar )
Age about 58 years, Occup. Farmer )
Address at – Aarav, Post Ransai, )
Taluka Pen, Dist. Raigad )...Petitioners
Versus
Tikam page 2 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
1. State of Maharashtra )
Through the Government Pleader, )
High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay )
2. The District Magistrate/Collector )
of Raigad at Alibaug, District Raigad )
3. The Revenue Minister, Revenue )
and Forest Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 )
4. The Additional Collector of Raigad )
Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 3396 OF 2023
Mr. Dyaneshwar Ramchandra Sutar )
Age about 60 years, )
Occupation Farmer, Address at )
Vadval Tanbi, Post. Donvat, )
Taluka Khalapur, Dist. Raigad )...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra )
Through the Government Pleader, )
High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay )
2. The District Magistrate/Collector )
of Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )
3. The Revenue Minister )
Revenue & Forest Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 )
4. The Additional Collector of Raigad )
Tikam page 3 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 3397 OF 2023
1. Mr. Pravin Vasant Jadhav )
Age about 32 years, )
Occupation Farmer, Address Owe )
Camp, Near Tata Hospital, Sector 22 )
Post Kharghar, Tal. Panvel, )
Raigarh- 410210 )
2. Smt. Haussa Vasatn Jadhav )
Age 57 years, Occupation Farmer )
Address Owe camp, Near Tata )
Hospital, Sector -22, Post Kharghar )
Tal. Panvel, Raigarh- 410210 )
3. Mr. Arvind Vasant Jadhav, )
Age 35 Years, Occupation Housewife )
Address Owe Camp, Near Tata )
Hospital, Sector-22, Post Kharghar, )
Tal. Panvel, Raigarh- 410210 )...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra )
Through the Government Pleader, )
High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay )
2. The District Magistrate/Collector )
of Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )
3. The Revenue Minister )
Revenue & Forest Department, )
Tikam page 4 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 )
4. The Additional Collector of Raigad )
Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 3398 OF 2023
1. Shrirang Mahadu Kadam )
Age about 32 Years, )
Occupation Farmer, Address at )
Waghali, Post Palas, Taluka Roha )
Dist. Raigarh )
2. Mr. Pandurang Maruti Pawar )
Age about 25 years, Occupation )
Farmer, Address at Waghali, )
Post Palas, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigarh )...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra )
Through the Government Pleader, )
High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay )
2. The District Magistrate/Collector )
of Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )
3. The Revenue Minister )
Revenue & Forest Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 )
4. The Additional Collector of Raigad )
Raigad at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad )...Respondents
Tikam page 5 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
[Link] Mane, Advocate for the Petitioners in all Writ Petitions
Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional G.P. a/w. Mrs. M.S. Bane, AGP for State
Respondents in all Writ Petitions
CORAM:- R.D. DHANUKA &
GAURI GODSE, JJ.
DATE :- 20 APRIL, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per: R.D. DHANUKA, J.]
1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties
vehemently states that the facts and issues involved in these
matters, are identical and can be disposed of by a common
order. Statement is accepted.
2. Since the matters and issue involved are identical,
we have taken the facts and submissions from Writ Petition
No. 3393/2023.
3. In these bunch of Petitions, the predecessor of the
Petitioners, Late Maruti Ganu Sutar, who is a Project Affected
Person, his land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for
Tikam page 6 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
construction of Koyna Project in the year 1962. The said Mr.
Maruti Ganu Sutar passed away, leaving behind him Mr. Kisan
Govind Sutar (Grandson, the Petitioner herein). According to
the Petitioners, Respondent No.1 formulated a scheme to
rehabilitate the the said project affected person.
4. Under the said Scheme, the displaced project
affected persons being affected are entitled for allotment of
agricultural land as per the Maharashtra Project Affected
Person Rehabilitation Act, 1999 ( for short ‘the Rehabilitation
Act’).
5. On 15th March, 1963, an Award being Award No.
[Link].-69 came to be passed in favour of Mr. Maruti Ganu
Sutar being the Project Affected Persons at Serial No. 145 in
Schedule-E. It is the case of the Petitioners that as per policy
decision promulgated by the State Government, Maharashtra
for resettlement of project affected person, the Petitioners
were offered compensation of Rs.209-30/- and also offered
resettlement by allotment of an agricultural lands as per the
said Rehabilitation Act. The Petitioners made a representation
on 8th September, 2020 and applied for agricultural plot of
Tikam page 7 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
land as per the said Scheme. According to the Petitioner the
said application is still pending.
6. The Petitioners filed this Petition on 21 January,
2021, inter alia, praying for a Writ of Mandamus against the
Respondents to expeditiously allot the land to the Petitioner as
per the representation dated 8 September, 2020. Writ
Petition(s) are opposed by the learned AGP for the
Respondents-State. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in
these bunch of Petitions placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court delivered on 3 rd December, 2019 in Writ Petition
No. 565 of 2019 in case of Kisan @ Krishna Bhagu Kadam
& Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and submitted that
in the identical matter, this Court had granted such reliefs.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
Petitioners at length and we have considered the documents
annexed to the Petition. We have also considered the
additional documents filed by the Petitioners in February,
2022.
8. It is the case of the Petitioners themselves that the
Tikam page 8 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
land acquisition award was made in the year 1963 in favour of
the predecessor of the Petitioners. The Petition is silent as to
whether any compensation amount has been deposited at the
instance of the Petitioners for the purpose of allotment of the
land. On the contrary, the averments made in the Additional
Affidavit filed by the Petitioners, indicates that the
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act came
into force in the year 1999 whereas the land was acquired in
the year 1963. The condition of deposit of 65% compensation
amount is not applicable in the Petitioner’s case as the said
Rehabilitation Act came into force in 1999. However, still the
Petitioners are willing and ready to deposit the 65% of
compensation amount at the time of passing of the Award, if
at all Court directs them to deposit the said amount, before
the allotment of alternate lands.
9. It is thus a common ground that the Petitioners had
accepted the entire compensation amount paid as per the
provisins of the said Land Acquisition Act made in the year
1963 passed pursuant to the award dated 15 March, 1963
passed in favour of the predecessor of the Petitioners. The
Tikam page 9 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
representation came to be made for the first time on 8
September, 2020. The Learned AGP strongly placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court delivered on 8 December, 2022
in Writ Petition No. 10346 of 2022 in case of Maruti Ganu
Supnekar (since deceased) through Legal Heirs Ananda
Maruti Supnekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
and submitted that even if the provisions under the
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act,
1999 are made applicable to the facts of this case, the
Petitioners did not make any application under Section 16(1)
of the said Rehabilitation Act when the compensation was
offered under Section 12(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
10. It is submitted that at this stage, there is no
question of offering the Petitioner to deposit 65% amount of
compensation received by the predecessor of the Petitioners
in the year 1963 for the purpose of making alternate land. In
our view, since there was neither such scheme for allotment of
as contemplated under Section 15 of the said Rehabilitation
Act nor such scheme could be at that time, the question of
making any allotment of land after expiry of 60 years did not
Tikam page 10 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
arise. The Petitioners cannot seek any allotment of land under
the said Rehabilitation Act when the said Act itself came in to
effect in the year 1999. It is the case of the Petitioners
themselves that the said Act was not in force when the land of
predecessor of the Petitioners was acquired.
11. This Court in the said judgment in case of Maruti
Ganu Supnekar (supra) has distinguished the judgment of
this Court in case of Dadabhau Pandurang Agarkar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. and has held that the
Petitioner had accepted 100% of compensation and did not
desire to apply for plot or land or both under the Scheme
published by the Government of Maharashtra under Section
16(1) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons
Rehabilitation Act, 1999. Question of thus issuing notice
under Section 16(2) of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons
Rehabilitation Act, 1999 for depositing amount did not arise.
12. This Court held that the stage for issuance of notice
under Section 16(2) of the said Rehabilitation Act, to deposit
the amount would arise only if the application under Section
16(1) of the said Rehabilitation Act is made by an eligible
Tikam page 11 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
affected person who has a desire to get land or plot or both in
the area shown for the purpose in the scheme published under
Section 15 of the said Rehabilitation Act. There is no
automatic entitlement of the land or plot under the said
Scheme. This Court held that Section 16(2) of the said
Rehabilitation Act cannot be read in isolation and has to be
read with Section 16 (1) (a) of the said Rehabilitation Act.
Even this Court would have accepted the submission of the
Petitioners that obligation to deposit 65% amount would
commence from the date of issuance of such notice though no
application is made for allotment of such plot under Section
16(1) of the said Rehabilitation Act is accepted, at this stage,
the said judgment would clearly advance the case of the
Respondents and not the Petitioners.
13. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in case of
Kisan @ Krishna Bhagu Kadam & Ors. relied upon the
learned counsel for the Petitioners is concerned, even in that
cases the State Government has provided the list of land to
the Petitioners and the eligibility of the Petitioners for
allotment of lands had been decided. In this case, the
Tikam page 12 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
2- WP 3393 of [Link]
Petitioner himself has pleaded that 65% amount was not
required to be deducted from the compensation paid to the
predecessor of the Petitioner in the year 1962. In view of the
fact that it is a plea of the Petitioners that the said
Rehabilitation Act is not applicable and was not in existence
when the land acquisition award was made in the year 1963 in
favour of the predecessor of the Petitioner, the question of
payment of 65% compensation amount or for allotment of land
under the provisions of the said Rehabilitation Act and that
also after expiry of the 62 years from the date of award,
cannot be accepted. Hence, all these Petitions are devoid of
merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(GAURI GODSE, J.) ( [Link], J. )
Tikam page 13 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2024 [Link] :::
