Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of Waman Ganpatrao Kadam, owned lands in Velhe, Satara, acquired for the Koyna Project in 1961. They claimed they received neither compensation nor a rehabilitation plot. The Government policy for rehabilitation of Koyna Project-affected persons led to an allotment order dated 31 November 2017, allotting specific lands in Pendhar, Panvel, Raigad. However, on 10 January 2019, the Additional Collector cancelled the allotment without hearing the petitioners, citing uneven land, non-contiguity, and constructions. The petitioners challenged this cancellation in Writ Petition LDVC No.160 of 2020, which was allowed on 15 October 2020, setting aside the cancellation and directing a fresh hearing. During the rehearing, the Additional Collector, by order dated 2 August 2022, referred the matter to the State Government under Rule 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, and Government Resolution dated 14 June 2022, without deciding the petitioners' entitlement. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioners' eligibility and entitlement were never disputed. The cancellation was based on grounds that did not affect eligibility. The reference to the State Government was unnecessary and would cause further delay. The Court held that the respondents were duty-bound to allot alternative land if the originally allotted land was unavailable. The Court directed the respondents to allot alternative land to the petitioners within six weeks, failing which the petitioners could approach the Court for contempt. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Cancellation of Allotment Without Hearing - The cancellation of the allotment order dated 31 November 2017 was set aside as it was made without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice (Paras 6, 14).
B) Land Acquisition - Rehabilitation of Project-Affected Persons - Koyna Project - The petitioners, being Koyna Project-affected persons, were entitled to rehabilitation land under the Government's policy. The impugned order referring the matter to the State Government was held to be uncalled for as the petitioners' eligibility was undisputed (Paras 13, 14, 18).
C) Land Revenue - Rule 50 of Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971 - Reference to State Government - The reference under Rule 50 was not justified when the petitioners' entitlement was already settled and the only issue was availability of land. The Court directed the respondents to allot alternative land within six weeks (Paras 18, 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government's reference of the petitioners' allotment to the State Government under Rule 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, and Government Resolution dated 14 June 2022, was justified when the petitioners' eligibility and entitlement to rehabilitation land were undisputed.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 2 August 2022, and directed the respondents to allot alternative land to the petitioners within six weeks. If not allotted within that time, the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Court for contempt proceedings. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Rehabilitation policy for project-affected persons
- Rule 50 of Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules
- 1971
- Government Resolution dated 14 June 2022
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (02) 297
Writ Petition No. 5273 of 2024
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain
Ms Poonam Bodke Patil (Through V.C.) for Petitioners, Mr R S Pawar, AGP for Respondents-State
Waman Ganpatrao Kadam (since deceased) through legal heirs: Rajesh Wamanrao Kadam, Nilesh Wamanrao Kadam, Neelam w/o Nandkumar Shinde, Archana w/o Ashok Shinde
The State of Maharashtra, The Under Secretary (Revenue and Forest Department), The Additional Collector, Raigad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Collector referring the matter of allotment of rehabilitation land to the State Government under Rule 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 2 August 2022 and direction to the respondents to allot alternative land for rehabilitation.
Filing Reason
The Additional Collector, after a previous court order setting aside cancellation of allotment, referred the matter to the State Government instead of deciding the petitioners' entitlement, causing further delay.
Previous Decisions
The cancellation order dated 10 January 2019 was set aside by the High Court in Writ Petition LDVC No.160 of 2020 on 15 October 2020, with liberty to decide afresh after hearing the petitioners.
Issues
Whether the impugned order dated 2 August 2022 referring the matter to the State Government under Rule 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, was justified when the petitioners' eligibility and entitlement were undisputed.
Whether the respondents were duty-bound to allot alternative land to the petitioners for rehabilitation.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners' counsel argued that eligibility and allotment were already settled, and the reference to the State Government was uncalled for and intended to delay rehabilitation. She relied on Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah.
Respondents' counsel submitted that the originally allotted land had access issues and some was already allotted to others. He suggested referring the matter to a High-Powered Committee.
Ratio Decidendi
When a person's eligibility and entitlement to rehabilitation land are undisputed, the authorities cannot refer the matter to the State Government under Rule 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, without deciding the entitlement. The authorities are duty-bound to allot alternative land if the originally allotted land is unavailable, and any delay in doing so violates the right to rehabilitation.
Judgment Excerpts
The entire affidavit does not raise any doubts about the Petitioners’ being Koyna Project-affected persons. There are also no doubts about their eligibility or entitlement to land allotment through rehabilitation.
The order dated 31 November 2017 was cancelled without even minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice.
In such circumstances, there was no question of issuing the impugned order dated 02 August 2022 referring the matter to the State Government.
Procedural History
The petitioners' lands were acquired for the Koyna Project in 1961. On 31 November 2017, the Additional Collector allotted rehabilitation lands to the petitioners. On 10 January 2019, the allotment was cancelled without hearing. The petitioners challenged this in Writ Petition LDVC No.160 of 2020, which was allowed on 15 October 2020, setting aside the cancellation and directing a fresh hearing. On 2 August 2022, the Additional Collector referred the matter to the State Government under Rule 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, and Government Resolution dated 14 June 2022. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971: Rule 50
