Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 1644
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra & Others
Versus
Shantaram B. Nawale (deceased) Lahu Shantaram Nawale & Others
Civil Application No.209 of 2013 In Writ Petition No.263 of 2012
Decided On : 22-08-2013
For the Applicants: Nitin Deshpande, AGP.
For the Respondents:G.S. Godbole, Pralhad Paranjpe, G.H. Potnis i/b. Ms. Pallavi H. Potnis, Advocates.
Headnote:Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 - Section 16(2)(a) - Acquisition of land.
Communication to Special Land Officer by some of project affected persons that they were not desirous to obtain alternate land, not amounts to warier of right to alternate land. - In the order of the Division Bench dated 17 July, 2012, the Court has observed that the original petitioners were not issued with any notice by the Collector informing them of their entitlement to get alternate land. Moreover, it was not disputed that the original petitioners were not given notice under Section 16(2)(a). Though over one year has elapsed after the order of the Division Bench, this factual assertion has not been disputed. No statement to the contrary is contained in the Civil Application. In this view of the matter, the fact that no notice has been issued under Section 16(2)(a) cannot be in dispute.
The only ground in the Civil Application is that home of the project affected persons had communicated to the Special Land Acquisition Officer that they are not desirous to obtain alternate land. This, would not amount to a waiver of the valuable right which is conferred by the Resettlement Act of 1999 since the forfeiture of that right can only take place strictly in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 16. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is not the authority designated under the law to scrutinize an application for the grant of alternate land under the Resettlement Act of 1999. The Act of 1999 has enacted a scheme which inter alia provides for the manner in which the forfeiture of an entitlement can take place. Unless a notice has been issued under Section 16(2)(a), there would be no occasion for the erstwhile land holder to know of the grant which has been made of the alternate land. It is only upon issuance of a notice under Section 16(2)(a) that the time to deposit sixty-five per cent of the amount of compensation would begin to run. It is only thereafter that the issue of forfeiture would arise.
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
The prayer in the Civil Application is for modification of an order dated 17 July 2012 passed by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.A. Bobde (as His Lordship then was) and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Mridula Bhatkar and for an extension of time for issuance of a notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Affected Persons Act, 1999 by a period of six months.
2. The Division Bench delivered a judgment dated 17 July 2012 on a batch of matters where the Petitioners were owners of agricultural lands which were acquired for the Bhama Askhed Project. The Division Bench observed that it was not disputed that: (i) The lands were acquired by the State Government for submergence in the Bhama Askhed Project; (ii) The Petitioners were not given any notice by the Collector informing them of their entitlement to get alternate land; and (iii) The Petitioners were not given notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Act. The Petitioners were denied a right to get alternate land on the ground that they had not deposited sixty-five per cent of the amount of compensation within a time limit of forty five days. The Petitions were disposed of with the following directions:
“(i) The Collector, Pune, shall give a notice to the Petitioners under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 for grant and allotment of land. The notice shall be given by Registered Post A.D. or by hand delivery within a period of one month from today. (ii) It will be open to the Petitioners to communicate their willingness to accept the grant of land within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of such notice from the Collector. (iii) The Petitioners shall also deposit with the Collector, Pune, 65% of the amount of compensation received by them for the land acquired from them or the likely cost of the land granted to them, whichever is less, at the time of payment of such compensation to the Petitioners.”
3. A Civil Application has been taken out by the State. The ground in the Civil Application is that a search has revealed that some of the Petitioners “had given up their right to claim lands” and that at the time of the payment of compensation, it seems from the record that the offer of payment of sixty-five per cent compensation for obtaining alternate land was given to each project affected person and his statement was recorded whether or not he is willing to deposit the amount. It has been stated that in the project, 111 project affected persons deposited sixty-five per cent of the amount while the rest had given a statement to the effect that they do not want alternate land and 315 such statements were found in the record of the Special Land Acquisition Officers. On this ground, it has been prayed that the order of the Division Bench dated 17 July 2012 be modified and an extension of time for issuance of notices under Section 16(2)(a) be allowed.
4. The Learned AGP has relied upon an order passed by the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.S. Oka and Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Mridula Bhatkar on 20 March 2013 in MahaduRambhau Bendure vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 1668 of 2013 with Writ Petition 1669 of 2013). While disposing of that batch of Petitions, the Division Bench had granted liberty to the District Resettlement Officer to examine whether the Petitioners there, were project affected persons as claimed by them and whether they are entitled to the allotment of lands under the Act. The DRO was directed to decide this issue after furnishing an opportunity of being heard. Moreover, the District Collector was directed to verify as to whether notices under Section 16(2)(a) had been served. The Division Bench had issued the following directions:
“(a) We direct the fourth Respondent to examine the cases of the Petitioners and to ascertain whether the Petitioners are project affected persons as claimed by them and whether are entitled
