JUDGMENT :

G.S.Kulkarni, J.

The judgment has been divided into the following parts:

A. Preface:-

1. The petitioners in these two petitions are seeking reliefs in respect of the same land, and in this regard the orders passed by the Revenue authorities exercising powers under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for short, the “said Act”), are the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings.

2. The petitioners in both the petitions are claiming to be project affected persons of an irrigation project known as “Bhama Aaskhed Project” (for short, the “said project”). They claim that being project affected persons falling under the provisions of the said Act, they were entitled for grant of an alternate land on account of the submergence of their land as originally owned by the petitioners, which were acquired for the purpose of the said project. The claim is thus that they have become landless although they had received land acquisition compensation, however, they opted for benefits of allotment of alternate land as per the provisions of the said Act.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Shri Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh (for convenience referred to as “Rajaram”), who is respondent no.2 in the first writ petition, has filed the companion writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2876 of 2022 praying that he be put in possession of the land, as he was legitimately allotted the land in question. It needs to be noted that both the petitions were heard together by a co-ordinate bench of this Court and by a judgment and order dated 29 April, 2022, these petitions were disposed of in terms of the following operative order passed by this Court:-

“7] In the light of above, following order is passed :

i] The impugned orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 are set aside.

ii] The parties shall appear before the Deputy Collector, Pune Division, Pune on 30.05.2022 and put-forth their stand.

iii] The Deputy Collector, Pune shall consider the stand of the parties and take decision afresh with regard to allotment of land from Gat No.401/3 situated at Nanekawadi, Taluka-Khed, District-Pune.

iv] The decision shall be taken preferably within 3 months from the date of appearance of parties before the Authority.

v] Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.”

4. Rajaram had challenged the above order passed by this Court before the Supreme Court in the proceedings of Civil Appeal Nos. 8014-8015 of 2022 which came to be allowed by the Supreme Court by a judgment and order dated 04 November, 2022 whereby the proceedings of both the petitions were remitted to this Court for decision of such petitions afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. The relevant extract of the orders passed by the Supreme Court reads thus:-

“4. Now so far as the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is concerned the High Court has set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector solely on the ground that orders were passed by the Deputy Collector without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is coram non-judice. However, it is required to be noted that the Deputy Collector was directed to take a fresh decision pursuant to order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WP No. 3126/2019 which was as such in the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 – Kaluram Jadhav. The order dated 11.10