Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of Maruti Ganu Supnekar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. Their lands had been acquired by the State Government as they were submerged under the Mahind Pond (Talav) project in the years 1996-99. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had issued notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and, after following due procedure, acquired the land and made an Award. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus declaring that they are entitled to a residential plot and alternate land from the benefited zone of the Mahind Pond project, and also sought a direction to the respondents to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999. The court noted that it was an admitted position that the petitioners' lands had been submerged. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, did not oppose the petition and submitted that the petitioners' claim would be considered in accordance with law. The court, therefore, allowed the petition and directed the respondents to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, and to consider the petitioners' claim for alternate land in accordance with law. The court also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim and that the respondents would decide the claim on its own merits.
Headnote
A) Rehabilitation Law - Alternate Land Entitlement - Section 16(2)(a) of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 - Project Affected Persons - The petitioners' lands were submerged under the Mahind Pond project in 1996-99. The court held that the petitioners are entitled to alternate land and directed the respondents to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Act and consider the petitioners' claim for alternate land in accordance with law. (Paras 1-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Direction to Statutory Authority - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to direct the respondents to perform their statutory duty under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, by issuing notice under Section 16(2)(a) and considering the petitioners' claim for alternate land. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, whose lands were submerged under the Mahind Pond project, are entitled to a residential plot and alternate land from the benefited zone under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, and whether the respondents are obligated to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the said Act.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, and to consider the petitioners' claim for alternate land in accordance with law. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim.
Law Points
- Right to rehabilitation
- Alternate land entitlement
- Mandamus
- Section 16(2)(a) of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act
- 1999
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 57
WRIT PETITION NO. 10346 OF 2022
R. D. Dhanuka, M. M. Sathaye
Mr. G.T. Kanchanpurkar for the Petitioner, Mrs. M.S. Bane AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7-State
Maruti Ganu Supnekar (Since Deceased) through Legal Heirs, Ananda Maruti Supnekar, Bhagwan Maruti Supnekar (Since Deceased) through Legal Heirs, Smt. Indumati Bhagwan Supnekar, Vinod Bhagwan Supnekar (Deceased) through Legal Heirs
The State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Commissioner, The Collector, Rehabilitation Branch, The District Resettlement Officer, The Sub Divisional Officer, The Tahasildar, The Special Land Acquisition Officer-12
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for declaration of entitlement to alternate land and direction to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus declaring that they are entitled to a residential plot and alternate land from the benefited zone of Mahind Pond (Talav) project, and a direction to respondents to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' lands were submerged under the Mahind Pond project in 1996-99 and they were not provided alternate land or rehabilitation benefits under the Act.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to alternate land under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999?
Whether the respondents are obligated to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners submitted that their lands were submerged under the Mahind Pond project and they are entitled to alternate land under the Act.
Respondents did not oppose the petition and submitted that the claim would be considered in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the petitioners' lands were submerged under the project, they are project affected persons entitled to consideration for alternate land under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999. The respondents are obligated to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) and consider the claim in accordance with law.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for writ of mandamus for holding and declaring that Petitioners are entitled for a residential plot and alternate land from the benefited zone of Mahind Pond (Talav) project.
It is an admitted position that petitioners’ lands had been acquired by the State Government since the same were submerged under the Mahind Pond (Talav) project in the year 1996-99.
In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned AGP, we are inclined to allow this petition and direct the respondents to issue notice under section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and to consider the petitioners’ claim for alternate land in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The court heard the petition on 8 December 2022 and allowed it on the same day.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999: Section 16(2)(a)
- Land Acquisition Act: Section 4(1)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
