Petitioner entitled to alternate land and rehabilitation under Wildlife Act despite name not appearing in early records; inheritance rights recognized under Section 20.

JUDGMENT :

Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal since pleadings are complete.

Factual Matrix :

2. This is a Petition essentially seeking a direction against the District Rehabilitation Officer/District Collector, Satara, Respondent No.2 (“Respondent No.2”) for allotment of alternate land admeasuring 300 sq.ft. on the premise that the Petitioner is a project affected person of the Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary Project (“Project”). The Petitioner’s late husband was the original owner of a house bearing no. 30 situated at Village Zhadoli (Ambeghar), Taluka Patan, District Satara admeasuring 300 sq.ft. which came to be acquired for purposes of the Project under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (“Wild Life Act”).

3. The Petitioner’s case is that she had been living for almost 60 years in the said property prior to losing her house, when it was taken over in 2012, pursuant to the acquisition. The Petitioner’s three step- sons also handed over their respective agricultural and non-agricultural properties for the Koyna Project, the Petition states, as did various project affected families who were rehabilitated under the Rehabilitation Program pursuant to the acquisition. The Petitioner’s grievance is that she has neither received any alternate land nor any other accommodation. In fact, the Petitioner’s grievance is that her name was not even included in the list of project affected persons.

4. Various written and oral representations seeking allotment of alternate land or accommodation having failed, the Petitioner has filed this Petition. A complaint was filed by the Petitioner with the Lok Ayukta of the State. In proceedings before the Learned Lok Ayukta, Respondent No.2 submitted that the three step-sons have been paid compensation and granted alternate accommodation, and since the Petitioner was purportedly living with them, it would be inappropriate to give her the benefit of rehabilitation. Consequently, the Learned Lok Ayukta closed the complaint of the Petitioner without any directions.

5. It is Petitioner’s case that the compensation and accommodation granted to the three step-sons relate to their respective properties and had nothing to do with the Petitioner’s land and residential property thereon. According to Petitioner, who the Petitioner was living with, is totally irrelevant, when the question to be considered is whether the Petitioner was entitled to compensation and rehabilitation in respect of the land that she had occupied as a house. In any case, it is her case that she was not living with her step-sons, and at an advanced age, she has been forced to live at the mercy of her brother.

6. According to the Petitioner, the contention of Respondent No.2 that giving her alternate accommodation may be “inappropriate” is clever word play, which obfuscates addressing her legal entitlement under the Wild Life Act. The Petitioner has annexed records of the Gram Panchayat from the year 2009-10 to demonstrate that the residential property in question admeasuring 300 sq.ft. was in her name and it should be reasonable and logical that she must get compensation for the same. Likewise, the Petitioner has also annexed records to show other properties that had been standing in the name of her step-sons at the relevant time which would point to the compensation and other benefits granted to them being demonstrably for other properties and not in respect of the property of the Petitioner, which has been acquired for the Project.

7. The journey of this Petition is littered with multiple attempts by various benches of this Court attempting to enable the State resolving the grievance of the Petitioner. On October 11, 2023, an order was passed directing the Respondents to reconsider their stance and after examining the claim of the Petitioner (by then a 92-year old widow), to pass an appropriate order. The Respondents passed an o