Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S.Kulkarni, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Manik Chandru Deokar - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4022 of 2021
Decided On : 30-10-2023
REHABILITATION - LAND ALLOTMENT - MAHARASHTRA RESETTLEMENT OF PROJECT DISPLACED PERSONS ACT, 1976; 1989 AMENDMENT; 1999 AMENDMENT - The court discussed the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, emphasizing its humanitarian purpose to rehabilitate individuals affected by land acquisition. It highlighted that conditions imposed on land allotment must be reasonable and not arbitrary, particularly in light of the long delay in compliance. The court found that the cancellation of the petitioner's land allotment was unjustified and arbitrary, as it failed to consider the petitioner's circumstances and the lack of basic amenities on the allotted plot.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders cancelling the allotment of land due to non-compliance with a condition to construct a house within one year. The petitioner was entitled to 8000 sq.ft. of land due to the acquisition of his property for a public project but had only been allotted 6500 sq.ft. over several decades.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the allotment was arbitrary and unreasonable, as the condition to construct a house within one year was not feasible given the petitioner's family size and the lack of basic amenities. The court also noted that the state had not enforced this condition for 40 years, making the sudden enforcement unjust.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of Plot No.82 was illegal and arbitrary due to the violation of the construction condition. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the remaining 1500 sq.ft. of land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that conditions imposed on land allotment under the Resettlement Act must be reasonable and serve the purpose of rehabilitation. The arbitrary enforcement of a construction condition after decades was deemed unconstitutional and contrary to the Act's intent.
Final Decision: The court quashed the cancellation of the allotment of Plot No.82 and directed the state to allot the remaining 1500 sq.ft. of land to the petitioner within 12 weeks.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
JITENDRA JAIN, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for quashing of the orders dtd. 17/12/2019 and 24/11/2015 passed by Respondent No. 4, by which allotment of land No.82 admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. is sought to be cancelled. He further prays for issuance of writ of mandamus for allotment of balance land of 1500 sq.ft., as the Petitioner is entitled for 8000 sq. ft. land and he has been allotted only 6500 sq.ft. till date, in lieu of the Petitioner's land acquired long back.
2. Narrative of the relevant events :-
(ii) In the year 1976, the Petitioner was first allotted plot, being Plot No.82 admeasuring 2, 500 sq.ft. at village Sugaon, Khed-Bhose, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, but possession of this plot was handed over in the year 1989, i.e., after 13 years. The official translation of relevant extracts of letter dtd. 6/2/1976 allotting Plot No.82 imposing conditions reads thus:
"Conditions:
(1) The price for getting possessory right of the said plot which will be determined as per Government Resolution, General Administration Department No. R.P.A.1070 Occupancy/ Ra-1, dtd. 4/9/71, shall be paid in lump-sum, within 30 days from the date of its demand.
(2) The agreement should be executed in the format prescribed in the Government Resolution, General Administration Department No. R.P.A./1067 / Ra-1, dtd. 11/1/71.
(3) The Occupant shall not transfer plot allotted to him in the gaothan area, without obtaining prior permission from the Collector, Solapur.
(4) The Occupant should construct house within a period of one year.
(5) If it is found that the Occupant is not dam affected person, the plot which is allotted to him, will be withdrawn.
(6) The loan taken for the house in the new gaonthan area situated at Sugaon in Taluka Indapur as per the above mentioned Government Order, will be transferred to the plot being allotted under this Order and recovery thereof shall be made as per the Rules.
If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated and if the compliance in respect thereof, is not made, the Collector, Solapur shall take further action as per the provisions prescribed in the Law and shall revoke the right, title and interest to the said plot."
(emphasis supplied)
(iii) In the year 1996, the Petitioner was allotted second plot, being Plot No.12, admeasuring 4, 000 sq.ft. at village Sugaon Khed Bhose, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur. The second allotment in the year 1996 was almost after 20 years from the date of acquisition of the Petitioner's land.
(iv) However, the balance 1, 500 sq.ft. land (8000-2500-4000) still remains to be allotted to the Petitioner as of today, which is one of the prayers made in the present petition.
(v) On 14/5/2015, Respondent No.5"Shri. Dattatray Mohan Deokar (not related to the Petitioner in any manner as we are informed that most of the people residing in that area have similar surname) filed a complaint with Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, alleging that the Petitioner has not constructed the house on Plot No.82, admeasuring 2, 500 sq. ft. and, therefore, the said allotment of 2, 500 sq. ft. should be cancelled.
(vi) On 24/11/2015, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 passed an order cancelling the allotment of Plot No.82, admeasuring 2, 500 sq. ft. on the ground that the Petitioner has not constructed house on Plot No.82 admeasuring 2500 sq. ft. and thereby violated condition no.4 of order dtd. 6/2/1976.
(vii) The aforesaid order was challenged in review application filed by the Petitioner and was also a subject m
Conditions for land allotment under rehabilitation laws must be reasonable and not arbitrary, especially when they affect the fundamental rights of displaced persons.
Cancellation of alternate land allotment upheld for non-verification of family members and records; no natural justice breach; government superintendence valid; liberty for fresh eligibility-based ap....
The State has a duty to provide timely rehabilitation and fair compensation to project-affected persons, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Housing Board's cancellation of plot allotment was invalid due to lack of notice and failure to follow due process, violating principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
