Constitution of India, Article 300A – Right to Property – Court recognized the right to property as a constitutional and human right – Failure of State Government to provide rehabilitation for displaced persons amounted to the denial of constitutional rights – Court directed the State Government to allot alternate lands within six months – Secretary (Revenue), Government of Maharashtra made personally responsible for compliance.(Paras: 24, 25, 29.)

Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, Rule 50 – Government Land Disposal – Court held that referring the matter to the State Government under Rule 50 was unwarranted – No dispute regarding the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioners – Delay caused by procedural lapses and bureaucratic inefficiency. (Paras: 21, 22, 23.)

Koyna Project Rehabilitation Policy – Land Allotment – Court found that lands were allotted to the petitioners in 2017, later canceled without following principles of natural justice – Cancellation based on irrelevant considerations – Directed alternate land allotment if the originally allotted land was unavailable. (Paras: 5, 6, 14, 23.)

Court quashed the impugned order dated 02 August 2022 – Directed the State Government to allot alternate lands within six months – Imposed personal responsibility on Secretary (Revenue) for compliance.

Nature of Litigation: Writ Petition filed by legal heirs of the deceased landowner seeking rehabilitation and alternate land allotment due to displacement by the Koyna Project.

Relief Sought: Petitioners requested quashing of the cancellation order and sought immediate allotment of alternate land as per government policy.

Reason for Filing: Petitioners claimed non-receipt of compensation or rehabilitation plot despite land acquisition for a public project in 1961.

Previous Decisions: Cancellation order dated 10 January 2019 was set aside by the High Court on 15 October 2020, directing fresh hearing and decision.

Issues:

a) Whether the cancellation of land allotment without following principles of natural justice was valid. b) Whether the delay and referral of the matter to the State Government under Rule 50 were justified. c) Whether the petitioners were entitled to immediate allotment of alternate land.

Submissions/Arguments: a) Petitioners: Asserted their eligibility and entitlement for rehabilitation – Emphasized on bureaucratic delay and violation of natural justice. b) Respondents: Justified cancellation due to access issues and claimed necessity of government sanction under Rule 50 for land disposal.

Ratio:

The right to restitution and fair compensation is integral to the constitutional right under Article 300A – Administrative delays cannot undermine citizens’ constitutional and human rights – State must ensure efficient and expeditious implementation of rehabilitation policies.

Subjects: Right to Property – Constitutional Right – Human Right – Natural Justice – Rehabilitation – Land Allotment – Bureaucratic Delay – Government Responsibility – Koyna Project – Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules.