Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between two sets of project affected persons under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, both claiming entitlement to alternate land bearing Gat No. 401/3 at Nanekarwadi, Taluka Khed, District Pune, which became necessary because of acquisition of their original lands for the Bhama Aaskhed irrigation project. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 9109 of 2021, Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav and others, and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2876 of 2022, Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh, each asserted a superior right to the said land. Rajaram had initially applied for alternate land in 2007, but his application was rejected by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) on 29 October 2015. He challenged that rejection before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2639 of 2017. By an order dated 12 February 2018, a Division Bench set aside the rejection and directed the Deputy Collector to reconsider Rajaram’s claim afresh, noting that Rajaram’s share in the acquired land was less than 4 acres and that there was no restriction under the Act barring his claim. Meanwhile, Kaluram and others also staked a claim to the same land. In Writ Petition No. 3126 of 2019 filed by Kaluram, another Division Bench on 11 October 2019 directed the Deputy Collector to take a fresh decision regarding the land. Acting on these directions, the Deputy Collector passed orders on 2 January 2020 and 17 February 2020, effectively allotting the land to Rajaram. Aggrieved by this, Kaluram and others filed Writ Petition No. 9109 of 2021, while Rajaram filed Writ Petition No. 2876 of 2022 seeking enforcement of the allotment orders. The High Court initially heard the petitions together and, by a judgment dated 29 April 2022, set aside the Deputy Collector’s orders on the ground that the Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction and the orders were coram non judice. Rajaram appealed to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8014-8015 of 2022. The Supreme Court, on 4 November 2022, allowed the appeals, holding that the High Court had erred because the Deputy Collector was acting pursuant to the specific direction of the High Court in the earlier writ petition, which had attained finality, and therefore the orders could not be considered without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. The present judgment arose out of that remand, with the High Court tasked with examining the legality and validity of the Deputy Collector’s orders on their merits. The court was required to determine which of the competing project affected persons was entitled to the alternate land under the provisions of the Act. The judgment thoroughly examined the factual background, the earlier court orders, and the procedural history. However, the text provided ends before the court’s analysis and final conclusion, leaving the ultimate determination of the dispute unresolved in the extracted material.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction - Coram Non Judice - Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 - The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erroneously set aside the Deputy Collector's orders on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the Deputy Collector was acting under a specific direction from a Division Bench in WP No. 3126/2019, which had attained finality. Held, the orders were not coram non judice and the High Court must decide their validity on merits. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) in respect of allotment of alternate land under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 were legally valid on merits, and which of the rival project affected persons is entitled to the land.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act
- 1999
- jurisdiction of Deputy Collector
- coram non judice
- remand for fresh decision
- merits of allotment claims
- project affected persons
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (07) 114
Writ Petition No. 9109 of 2021 along with Writ Petition No. 2876 of 2022
G. S. Kulkarni, Jitendra Jain
Gaurav Potnis, Harshad Sathe for petitioner in WP 9109/2021; Drupad Patil, B. G. Ligade for petitioner in WP 2876/2022 and respondent no.2 in WP 9109/2021; Rajan Pawar, AGP for State
Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav and others; Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh
Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) Pune Division and others; State of Maharashtra and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) regarding allotment of alternate land to project affected persons under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 and a direction to allot the alternate land to the respective petitioners.
Filing Reason
Both the petitioners in the two writ petitions claim to be project affected persons entitled to the same alternate land bearing Gat No. 401/3 at Nanekarwadi; the Deputy Collector had passed orders allotting the land to Rajaram, which Kaluram and others challenge, and Rajaram seeks to enforce those orders.
Previous Decisions
Rajaram's initial application for alternate land was rejected on 29.10.2015. The High Court in WP No. 2639/2017 set aside that rejection on 12.02.2018 and directed fresh consideration. The Deputy Collector then passed orders on 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020. Kaluram and others challenged these orders. In earlier round, the High Court on 29.04.2022 set aside the orders on jurisdiction ground. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8014-8015 of 2022 on 04.11.2022 reversed that decision, holding that the Deputy Collector had jurisdiction and remanded for decision on merits.
Issues
Whether the orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 are valid on merits, and which of the rival claimants is entitled to allotment of alternate land.
Submissions/Arguments
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
4. Now so far as the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is concerned the High Court has set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector solely on the ground that orders were passed by the Deputy Collector without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is coram non-judice. However, it is required to be noted that the Deputy Collector was directed to take a fresh decision pursuant to order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WP No. 3126/2019 which was as such in the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 – Kaluram Jadhav. The order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WP No. 3126/2019 by which the Deputy Collector was directed to take a fresh decision attained the finality. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector on the ground that the same was without jurisdiction and coram non-judice.
Procedural History
1. Rajaram's application for alternate land rejected on 29.10.2015. 2. Rajaram filed WP No. 2639/2017; High Court on 12.02.2018 set aside rejection and remanded for fresh decision. 3. Kaluram filed WP No. 3126/2019; High Court on 11.10.2019 directed Deputy Collector to take fresh decision. 4. Deputy Collector passed orders on 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 allotting land to Rajaram. 5. Kaluram and others filed WP No. 9109/2021 challenging those orders; Rajaram filed WP No. 2876/2022 for enforcement. 6. High Court on 29.04.2022 set aside the orders on ground of lack of jurisdiction. 7. Rajaram appealed to Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8014-8015 of 2022; Supreme Court on 04.11.2022 allowed appeals, set aside High Court order, held that Deputy Collector had jurisdiction, and remanded for decision on merits. 8. Present hearing and judgment by High Court on remand.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999:
