Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Dagdabai Vitthal Kadam, a 91-year-old widow, filed a writ petition seeking allotment of alternate land admeasuring 300 sq.ft. and compensation for construction of a residential house, claiming to be a project affected person of the Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary Project under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Her late husband was the original owner of a house bearing no. 30 at Village Zhadoli (Ambeghar), Taluka Patan, District Satara, which was acquired in 2012 for the project. The petitioner had lived there for nearly 60 years. Her three step-sons also handed over their properties and were compensated and allotted alternate land. However, the petitioner's name was not included in the list of project affected persons, and she received no compensation or alternate accommodation. She made representations and approached the Lok Ayukta, but the State rejected her claim on two grounds: (i) her name did not appear in village records prior to the appointed date of October 10, 1985, and (ii) her step-sons had already been given alternate land, treating the family as a 'single unit'. The petitioner contended that she inherited the house from her husband who died in 1998, and that the village records were created only in 2001, wherein her name was reflected as owner. She argued that Section 20 of the Wildlife Act recognizes inheritance by succession, and the 'single unit' concept has no legal basis. The court examined the scheme of the Wildlife Act, particularly Sections 19 to 24 on resettlement, and Section 20 which prohibits acquisition of rights after notification except by succession. The court held that the appointed date cannot defeat a claim based on inheritance, and the State's 'single unit' theory is unsupported by law. The court quashed the rejection order dated October 16, 2023, and directed the State to allot alternate land of 300 sq.ft. to the petitioner and pay monetary compensation for construction of a residential house, within three months.
Headnote
A) Wildlife Law - Rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons - Sections 19-24, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Entitlement to Alternate Land - Petitioner, a 91-year-old widow, inherited a house from her husband who died in 1998, which was acquired in 2012 for the Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary Project - State rejected her claim on the ground that her name was not in village records prior to the appointed date of October 10, 1985, and that her step-sons had already been compensated as a 'single unit' - Court held that inheritance by succession is expressly recognized under Section 20 of the Act, and the appointed date cannot defeat such a claim - The 'single unit' concept has no statutory basis - State directed to allot alternate land of 300 sq.ft. and pay compensation for construction of a house (Paras 12-22). B) Wildlife Law - Appointed Date - Section 20, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Inheritance by Succession - Section 20 provides that after notification, no right may be acquired except by succession, testamentary or intestate - Petitioner's husband died in 1998, after the appointed date of 1985, and she inherited the property - Court held that the appointed date cannot be used to deny rehabilitation to a person who acquired rights by succession after that date - The State's reliance on the appointed date was misplaced (Paras 12, 14, 18-20). C) Wildlife Law - Rehabilitation - 'Single Unit' Concept - No Statutory Basis - State treated petitioner and her step-sons as a 'single unit' and denied separate rehabilitation - Court held that there is no provision in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 or any other law that supports such a concept - Each affected person with a distinct property right is entitled to independent rehabilitation - The step-sons had already been allotted separate plots for their own properties, which did not cover the petitioner's house (Paras 14, 21-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a project affected person whose name did not appear in village records prior to the appointed date (October 10, 1985) but who inherited the property by succession after that date is entitled to alternate land and compensation under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order dated October 16, 2023, and directed the respondents to allot alternate land admeasuring 300 sq.ft. to the petitioner and pay monetary compensation for construction of a residential house, within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Right to rehabilitation under Wildlife (Protection) Act
- 1972
- Sections 19-24
- Inheritance by succession recognized under Section 20
- Rejection of 'single unit' concept
- Appointed date not a bar for inherited property
