Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manik Chandru Deokar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the orders dated 17th December 2019 and 24th November 2015 passed by Respondent No. 4, the Additional Collector and Deputy Director (Rehabilitation), Solapur, by which the allotment of land No. 82 admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. was sought to be cancelled. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus for allotment of balance land of 1500 sq.ft., claiming entitlement to 8000 sq.ft. of alternate land under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (as replaced by subsequent Acts) in lieu of his land and residential house acquired for the Ujjani Dam Project. The petitioner's family consisted of 15 persons. In 1976, the petitioner was first allotted plot No. 82 admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. However, by the impugned orders, the allotment was cancelled. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was without any notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the cancellation was justified as the petitioner had not constructed a house within the stipulated time and that the petition was barred by limitation. The court analyzed the facts and found that the impugned orders were passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice. The court also noted that the petitioner was entitled to 8000 sq.ft. of alternate land but had only been allotted 6500 sq.ft. The court held that the cancellation orders were unsustainable and set them aside. The court further directed the respondents to allot the balance 1500 sq.ft. of land to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. The court did not accept the limitation argument as the petitioner had been pursuing the matter.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Cancellation of Allotment - The impugned order cancelling allotment of land was passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is violative of principles of natural justice - Held that such order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside (Paras 8-10). B) Land Acquisition - Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons - Entitlement to Alternate Land - Under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, the petitioner, whose land was acquired for Ujjani Dam Project, is entitled to alternate land admeasuring 8000 sq.ft. - The petitioner has been allotted only 6500 sq.ft. and is entitled to balance 1500 sq.ft. - Held that the respondents are directed to allot the balance land to the petitioner (Paras 2-7, 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of allotment of land to the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing is sustainable in law and whether the petitioner is entitled to allotment of balance land under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 17th December 2019 and 24th November 2015 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allot the balance 1500 sq.ft. of land to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Entitlement to alternate land under Resettlement Act
- Limitation for challenging cancellation orders
