Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Bombay High Court Adjudicates Batch of Writ Petitions Alleging State's Failure to Rehabilitate Project-Affected Persons. Court Examines Violation of Section 10 of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and Right to Livelihood Under Article 21 Due to Incomplete Irrigation Canal.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
Admin
2026-09-17 04:36:46
  • 225
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State's failure to provide irrigation facilities to project-affected persons allotted lands under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 violates the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution and the statutory obligations under the Act, entitling them to compensation and directions for completion of the canal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Article 21 right to livelihood
  • Section 10 Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act
  • 1999 (rehabilitation in benefited areas)
  • Judicial enforcement of fundamental rights
  • Compensation for violation of fundamental rights
  • State's obligation to provide irrigation facilities to project-affected persons
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6620 OF 2012

2017-03-02

Dr. Manjula Chellur, C. J., M. S. Sonak, J.

Mr. Gaurav Potnis, Mr. Ashok Joshi, Pallavi Potnis for Petitioners; Mr. Nitin Deshpande for Respondents

Genba Laxman Pawagi & Ors.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Article 226 challenging State's failure to provide rehabilitation and irrigation facilities to project-affected persons.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought direction to complete construction of Right Bank Canal, provide irrigation facilities, and compensation for violation of right to livelihood.

Filing Reason

State Authorities acquired lands for Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, relocated petitioners to barren lands without irrigation, and failed to complete canal despite repeated representations, causing deprivation of livelihood.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 8 December 2015 by this Court awarding compensation of Rs.15,000 per month per petitioner; matter now for final hearing.

Issues

Whether the State's failure to complete the Right Bank Canal and provide irrigation facilities violates Section 10 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999. Whether such failure violates the petitioners' right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and directions for completion of the canal.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they deposited 65% of compensation as occupancy price and were relocated, but the State failed to rehabilitate them in areas receiving irrigation benefit as required under Section 10, making the lands barren. Relied on Olga Tellis, Bhusawal Municipal Council, Rudul Sah, Challa Ramkonda Reddy, and Devki Nandan Prasad for violation of right to livelihood and compensation. State contended (incomplete) that there is no obligation under the said Act to allot...

Judgment Excerpts

Between the years 1994 and 1999, the ancestral lands and houses held by the petitioners were acquired by the State Authorities since the same were to be submerged under the Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project Waters. In the year 2001, when submergence was imminent, the petitioners alongwith their family members and cattle were physically uprooted and relocated in the village Shedgewadi... The petitioners contend that there is callous inaction, lethargy and apathy on the part of the State Authorities, which has resulted in depriving the petitioners, not just their statutory entitlements but also their basic human rights and in particular their right to livelihood as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. the obligation in terms of section 10 of the said Act is to rehabilitate the petitioners in areas receiving the benefit of irrigation from the project

Procedural History

Petitioners filed writ petitions in 2012. An order dated 8 December 2015 awarded interim compensation of Rs.15,000 per month. Final hearing concluded on 20 September 2016, judgment pronounced on 2 March 2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999: Section 10
  • Constitution of India: Article 21, Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
Right to livelihood Rehabilitation Irrigation project Land acquisition Compensation Article 21 Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 Section 10 Right Bank Canal Displacement Writ petition

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Application for Rejection of Plaint in Commercial Summary Suit Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation Under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Upheld as Suit Contemplated Urgent Interim Reli... 2026-09-18 16:35:10
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Landowner's Appeal on Limitation for Reference Under Land Acquisition Act. Award Not Effective Until Communicated; 'Date of Award' in Proviso to Section 18 Means Communication or Knowledge. 2026-09-18 16:35:04
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 Land Acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 11 Arbitration Application for Appointment of Arbitrato...

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Central Excise Refund Interest Dispute Under Section ...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Orders Allowing Writ Petitions by Lessees in Land Encr...

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order Setting Aside Anganwadi Supervisor Appointment for ...

Supreme Court Upholds Plaintiff in Specific Performance Suit Under Specific Relief Act, 19...

Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Appeal — Sets Aside NCL...

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Due to Absence of Pec...

Lost Your Password?