Rehabilitation claim under 1999 Act dismissed due to 33-year delay from 1989 acquisition, compensation accepted without protest, Act's non-retrospective effect, and no prior application.

JUDGMENT :

Kamal Khata, J.

1) By this Petition, the Petitioners seek directions to the Respondents to issue Notice under section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (“the Rehabilitation Act”) and to allot the Petitioners land in the beneficial zone of the said irrigation project, upon the Petitioners communicating their willingness and depositing 65% of the amount of compensation received by them.

2) The Petitioners claim to be owners of land bearing Survey No 134, admeasuring 1H 45.5 Are, and Survey No.130/6, admeasuring 0H 15 Are, both situated at village Dehane, Taluka Khed, District Pune. The Petitioners’ lands were acquired for Chaskaman Irrigation Project vide Awards bearing No. Land Acquisition Act (7) SR 111-85 dated 31^st March 1989 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 7, Pune.

3) Ms. Harpale, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act are applicable to Chaskaman Irrigation Project and that the Petitioners are, therefore entitled to alternate land by way of rehabilitation. According to her, the Project Affected Person (‘PAP’) does not forfeit the right to claim alternate land merely because no Notice under Section 16(2)(a) has been issued. She submitted that upon the issuance of such Notice, the PAP is required to communicate acceptance within 45 days from its receipt, and that the fact that the PAP did not deposit 65% of the compensation amount is immaterial.

She further contended that though their lands were acquired in the year 1989, the Petitioners have not yet published any notification under Section 15 of the Rehabilitation Act.

4) Ms. Kakde, learned AGP for the Respondent-State, invited our attention to the Affidavit in Reply dated 18^th March, 2026 filed by Dr. Swapnil B. More, Dy. Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune. She pointed out the statements therein that, the said lands in question were acquired in the year 1989, and that pursuant thereto, the original landowner had accepted the compensation awarded in the acquisition proceedings without any protest.

She submitted that the Petitioner had not applied for over 33 years from the dates of acquisition. She relied upon the Judgment in the case of Nana Narayan Bhalerao vs District Resettlement Officer & Ors (2023:BHC-AS:21548-DB) and judgments rendered in similar Writ Petitions filed by the PAPs, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. She also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of India & Ors. vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613, wherein the Apex Court declined to grant relief to a Petitioner who had approached the Court after an inordinate delay from the date of accrual of the cause of action. She, therefore, submitted that the present Petition, being similarly situated, also deserves to be dismissed.

5) We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record.

6) Admittedly, the Awards are dated 31^st March 1989. Pursuant thereto, the original landowner, accepted the compensation awarded without any protest.

6.1) It is an admitted position that no Application was ever made by the original landowner. After a lapse of over 33 years, the present Petitioners, for the first time, on 21^st September 2022, asserted a claim of entitlement under the Rehabilitation Act by filing this Petition.

6.2) Astonishingly, paragraph No.5 of the Petition baldly asserts that there is no period of limitation for raising the claim.

Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have dismissed similar Petit