An eligible affected person must make an application and desire to get land or plot under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 for the obligation to deposit 65% of the compensation amount to arise.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. 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. Petitioners have also prayed writ of mandamus against respondents to issue notice under section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999.

2. 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. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and after following procedure, acquired the land. After making an Award, the Special Acquisition Officer issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Petitioners for receiving payment of compensation, sometime in the year 2000.

3. The case of the petitioners now is that since no notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 for deposit of 65% of the amount was issued, the Petitioners did not deposit the said amount to enable the State Government to allot residential plot of their choice. He submitted that time to pay such amount did not commence and thus directions be issued to the respondents to issue such notice under section 16(2)(a) at the first instance and to give opportunity to the petitioners to deposit 65% amount. In support of this submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon on the Judgment of this Court delivered on 7th February 2017 in Writ Petition No. 8988 of 2013 in case of Dadabhau Pandurang Agarkar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and connected Writ Petitions.

4. Learned counsel invited our attention to the Sankalan Register for the year 2019 and more particularly S. No. 237 which clearly state that the petitioner is ineligible to get any land.

5. Perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and more particularly paragraph no. 6 of the petitioner clearly indicates that it is case of the petitioners that the petitioner and her husband did not deposit 65% amount as they were not aware about the same. Even officers of respondent no. 1 did not apprise petitioners about the said facts. It is case of the petitioners that petitioner and her husband received entire compensation of land and did not deposit 65% of the amount. Petitioners were not considered for rehabilitation under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999.

6. It is thus clear beyond reasonable doubt that petitioners had accepted 100% compensation amount in the year 2000 itself and did not express any desire to get land or plot or both under the Scheme under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999.

7. Section 16(1) and 16(2) of the said Act read thus:

16. Grant and assignment of land and payment of special grant:

(1) An eligible affected person who is desirous of getting land or plot or both in the area shown for the purpose in the scheme published under section 15 may make an application to the Collector in the prescribed form for grant of land or plot, and subject to such rules as may be prescribed, it shall be lawful for the Collector:

(a) to grant land acquired under section 14 to such affected person with the occupancy status on the land held by him earlier.

(b) to grant a plot of land to such affected person in a new gaothan or extended part of the existing gaothan with the occupancy status on the land held by him earlier and rupees ten thousand as a special grant for construction of house on such plot, in such manner, as far as possible, according to the provisions of parts III and IV of the Schedule and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed:

Provided that:

(i) if the allottee of the land under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-secti