Back
Slam-Dunks Fraudulent Land Allotment Claim in Temghar Dam Rehab Saga
In a stern rebuff to lax administrative practices, the dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of alternate rehabilitation land allotted to a project-affected family from the Temghar Dam project. A of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata ruled that allotments made without verifying eligibility—such as family size on the cutoff date—are unsustainable, especially amid allegations of misleading authorities. The court not only upheld the cancellation but ordered a sweeping probe into irregularities across the project.
From Dam Displacement to Allotment Drama
The saga traces back to when lands totaling 19R owned by Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne (through legal heirs, led by petitioner Dilip Mahadev Marne) at Lavharde village, Mulshi taluka, Pune district, were acquired for the Temghar Dam. As a , the family was entitled to alternate land, with 65% of compensation withheld by the toward this rehabilitation.
The petitioner applied for alternate plots in , escalating demands in for specific lands: 80R at Apti, 40R at Pimpalgaon Tarfe, and 80R at Burunjawadi (Gat No. 358/2). The last was approved on . But landowner Balasaheb Bhausaheb Wable contested this, claiming his 81R plot—partly acquired for rehab but with personal use (well, borewell, cultivation)—was wrongly allotted. Wable's pleas led to inquiries by the Additional Collector (who deferred in ) and escalated to the .
A pivotal report by the Additional Collector flagged issues: the petitioner's 8A records predated the cutoff, unverified 13-family-member claim (only petitioner's consent filed), and excess allotment beyond the 19R acquired. On , the Desk Officer directed cancellation of two plots, prompting the writ petition under .
Petitioner's Stand: Trumped?
argued the November 2025 order violated —no hearing for the petitioner despite the March 2024 allotment being lawful for an 80R entitlement based on family size. The family insisted on upholding prior orders.
State's Counter: Fraud Vitiates Everything
countered via an affidavit from Dr. Swapnil Bharat More, highlighting unverified claims and misleading documents. He termed the November letter a mere directive to the Collector (not final), stressed the state's supervisory powers, and invoked precedents: Tukaram Dhondi Sutar v. Nana Bhau Tibile (Bombay HC, 2018) for government oversight over Collectors, and 's S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) declaring fraud-based orders " ." Patel sought dismissal with costs, promising fresh allotment post-scrutiny.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Verification is King
The Bench sided decisively with the state, finding the allotment flawed from the start. No merit in quashing the directive, as records confirmed skipped verification of family size and holdings. Rejecting the petitioner's refusal to reapply afresh, the court clarified: fraud nullifies grants, but PAPs retain rights to proper claims.
Drawing on Chengalvaraya Naidu , it underscored fraud's corrosive effect on judicial/administrative orders. The ruling reinforces that rehab entitlements demand rigorous cutoff-date proof, distinguishing valid claims from inflated ones.
Punchy Quotes from the Bench
-
On flawed process
:
"Dr. More’s Affidavit categorically admits that, the land allotment was made without verifying the records particularly the number of members in the Petitioner’s family on the
."
-
Rejecting interference
:
"We do not find any justification in setting aside the letter dated 4th November, 2025 whereby the allotment of land to the Petitioner was cancelled."
-
Broader mandate
:
"We direct the Secretary of the
... to undertake an investigation to look into the irregularities and illegal allotments of land in respect of the Temghar Dam Project."
Fallout: Probe Ordered, Fresh Chances with Strings
The petition stands dismissed, vacated. Yet, the petitioner can reapply with documents for verified entitlement. Critically, the court mandated:
- Investigation by the Relief and Rehabilitation Secretary into Temghar irregularities.
- Action reports against allotting officials and the petitioner for misleading.
- Compliance affidavit by .
As reported in legal circles, this echoes the 's push for accountability in rehab schemes, signaling tighter scrutiny for PAP allotments statewide. Future claims must nail verification—or risk nullification.
