JUDGMENT :

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are praying for similar reliefs. For convenience, we note the prayers as made in Writ Petition No. 8192 of 2022 which reads thus:

“(A) this Hon’ble Court may, by way of appropriate Writ Order or direction, direct the respondents to issue notice u/s 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 to the Petitioner and after the Petitioner communicate willingness and deposit an amount of 65% of the amount of compensation received by them further direct the respondents to allot to the Petitioner land in the beneficial zone of the said Irrigation Project.

(B) All other just and necessary Orders may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. The petitioners claim to be the project affected persons. Insofar as the first petition is concerned, the petitioner therein is claiming rights qua the land in question through his predecessor Dnyanu Bhiku Tanpure. Insofar as the petitioner in the second petition is concerned, it is contended that he is claiming rights in respect of the land in question through his predecessor Shankar Abaji Kshisagar. It is contended that they hold lands at Village Wada, Tq. Khed, District Pune. The details of which are set out in both the petitions in paragraph No. 2.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the lands of the predecessors were acquired for Chaskaman Irrigation Project, in respect of which the land acquisition award was rendered on 21 March 1989 and 31 March 1989 respectively. The case of the petitioners is to the effect that they would be entitled to alternate land. The petitioners have made specific averments in the petitions that petitioners have never received a notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for short the “1999 Act”). It is their contentions that after passing of the award the respondents particularly the Collector, ought to have prepared proposals in one or more stages from time to time as the circumstance may require for rehabilitation of the affected persons from the affected Zone under the project, and publish a notice containing such proposals. However, no such proposal was prepared.

4. The primary contentions as urged by Mr. Deshpande in both these petitions is that the respondents never issued a notice under Section 16(2) (a) of the 1999 Act to the petitioners, who are project affected persons, calling upon to them to communicate their willingness to accept the grant of land within the stipulated period and it is in these circumstances, the petitioner would be hit by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the 1999 Act, and it would be presumed that the petitioners have fortified their right to get allotment of the alternate land. It is thus submitted that there was no alternative for the petitioners but to approach this Court praying for a direction that the respondent issues a notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the 1999 Act to the petitioner, and after such a notice is issued, the petitioners would communicate their willingness and thereafter the petitioner be permitted to deposit 65% of the amount of compensation received by the petitioners and thereafter respondents shall allot the petitioners land in the beneficial zone of the Irrigation project. Mr. Deshpande, in support of such contention, has drawn our attention to the land acquisition awards which are annexed to the petition which itself are of the year March, 1989 as noted above.

5. We have heard Mr. Deshpande and Ms. Bane, learned AGP. We have also perused the record.

6. At the outset to appreciate the contentions as urged by the petitioners we note the provisions of Section 16 of the 1999 Act, which reads 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 sec