JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. The only relief as prayed for by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution reads thus:

“A. This Hon’ble Court may, by way of appropriate Writ order or direction, direct the respondents to allot to the petitioner remaining 40R land out of Gat No. 711/2 and Gat No. 327/2A admeasuring 40R totally 80R land at village Jwala Arjun, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune as an alternate land.”

2. The Petitioner claims to be a project affected person of an irrigation project, namely, the Nazare Project. Although, the petition is totally bereft of any details in regard to the details of his land acquired and the land acquisition award, however, in paragraph 4 of the petition, an averment is made that on 4th May 1974, the Respondents had allotted to the Petitioner 41R of land, out of Gat No.548/13 at Jwala Arjun, Purandar, District Pune. According to the Petitioner, the allotment of 41R land as undertaken about 49 years back is not sufficient as he should have been provided land admeasuring 80R.

3. The Petitioner having realised the shortfall in allotment for the first time in the year 2022 when the Petitioner made an application dated 23rd December 2022 claiming 80R of land to the Respondent/District Resettlement Officer, Pune. As the Respondent did not take any decision on the said application, the Petitioner has filed this petition.

4. There are only three cryptic grounds as set out in the petition. Firstly, that the Petitioner is entitled to additional 80R of land. Secondly, that the Respondents are under a legal obligation to rehabilitate the Petitioner and thirdly, that interest of justice demands this Court to allot 80R of land. There is no averment whatsoever of any legal right vested in the Petitioner to make such belated claim after the year 1974 that is after a period almost 49 years. There is not a whisper of a case as made out in the petition, justifying such inordinate delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner in approaching the Court.

5. The Petitioner appears to be of the opinion that merely making a representation/application for allotment of land after such long-long delay would originate a cause of action in his favour to resurrect/reopen the proceedings and, by making such application, there is an obligation on the Respondent to make an allotment order in favour of the Petitioner so as to maintain the prayers as noted by us. This appears to be the sole purpose of this petition. In forming such opinion either the Petitioner is not only over ambitious and adventurous, but appears to be totally misdirected.

6. We may observe that this Court was dealing with a similar situation of a stale claim being asserted for allotment of alternate land as a project affected person, in the case of Tatoba Rama Chavan vs. Collector, Kolhapur District, Kolhapur And Others, Writ Petition No.3883 of 2022 dated 26th July 2023., wherein land was acquired in the year 1983, this Court referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology & Mining & Anr., AIR 2009 Supreme Court 264., as also the decisions in Union of India & Ors. vs. C. Girija & Ors., (2019) 15 SCC 633, State of Uttaranchal & Another vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 179 , Union of India And Others vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 and The Govt. of India & Anr. vs. P. Venkatesh, Civil Appeal No.2425 of 2019 (@ SLP (C) No.5810 of 2017), New Delhi, March 01, 2019., had dismissed the petition. The situation in the present petition is not different from the said case. We may note the observations as made by this Court in the said decision, which, in our opinion, are aptly applicable in the facts of the present case:

“8. The Petitioner in the present petition is blissfully silent on several basic requirements for her to maintain this petition. She has not made any averments as to whether any occupancy price was paid by the Petitioner’s father and any other preconditions required for grant of land were compli