The State has a duty to provide timely rehabilitation and fair compensation to project-affected persons, adhering to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the partiers.

3. The Petitioners are the legal heirs of the late Wamanrao Ganpatrao Kadam, who owned the lands measuring 13 Ha 37 acres at village Velhe, Taluka Javli, District Satara, Maharashtra. These lands were acquired for the Koyna Project by an Award bearing No. LQ-5R-48 dated 17 January 1961. The Petitioners claim they have received neither compensation nor a rehabilitation plot in lieu of such an acquisition.

4. The Petitioners rely on a Government policy decision to rehabilitate the persons affected by the Koyna Project. Based on this policy, the Government earmarked the lands bearing Survey Nos. 266/10, 277/3, 248/22, 253/10, 253/11, 253/12, 46/1 and 71 situated at village Pendhar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, for rehabilitation.

5. Since there was no dispute about the Petitioner's eligibility and entitlement, the third Respondent, by order dated 31 November 2017, under the above policy, allotted the following lands to the Petitioners: -

6. However, On 10 January 2019, the third Respondent, without even minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play, cancelled the allotment order dated 31 November 2017. The grounds for cancellation stated were that the allotted land was uneven, the area was not contiguous, or there were some constructions thereon.

7. The Petitioners challenged this cancellation order dated 10 January 2019 by instituting Writ Petition LDVC No.160 of 2020. By order dated 15 October 2020, the Petition was allowed, the cancellation order dated 10 January 2019 was set aside, and the Respondents were given liberty to decide the matter afresh by providing the petitioners with an opportunity of hearing.

8. During the hearing, several queries were raised. The Petitioners submit that those queries were satisfactorily responded to. Despite such satisfactory response, by order dated 02 August 2022 (Exhibit-C, at pages 23 to 26), a reference has been made under Rule 50 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land), 1971, Rules and Government Resolution dated 14 June 2022 to the State Government for deciding the issue of allotment of lands by way of rehabilitation to the Petitioners.

9. Ms. Poonam Bodke Patil, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the issues of eligibility and allotment to the Petitioners were already settled, and there was no dispute regarding the same. In such circumstances, there was no question of issuing the impugned order dated 02 August 2022 referring the matter to the State Government. She submitted that, admittedly, the Petitioners are project-affected persons. Further, the State Government’s policy is to rehabilitate such project-affected persons. According to such policy, the lands were allotted to the Petitioners. Apart from violating natural justice, the cancellation was based on irrelevant considerations and reasons that were ultimately given up. She submits that if, for any reason, the same lands allotted to the Petitioners cannot now be allotted, the Respondents are duty-bound to allot the alternate lands by way of rehabilitation. She submits that the reference to the State Government is entirely uncalled for and is only to waste time and deny the Petitioners rehabilitation benefits. She relies on Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another Vs.Bimal Kumar Shah and Others, (2024) 10 SCC 533 in support of her contentions.

10. Mr. R.S. Pawar, the learned AGP for the Respondents-State, submits that the earlier land allotted to the Petitionerswas cancelled because of access issues. He points out that some of the allotted l