Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S.GADKARI, KAMAL KHATA
Shrikrishna Mahadev Kokane, Since deceased through his LR – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune – Respondent
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 Gat No.269 (Survey No.108), admeasuring 0H 27 R, and Survey No.90/7, admeasuring 0H 46.2R, both situated at village Supedhar, Taluka Ambegaon, District Pune. The Petitioners’ lands were acquired vide Awards dated 3rd January, 1972 and 30th March, 1977.
3) Ms. Harpale, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act are applicable to Dimbe Irrigation Project and 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 issuan
Claims for alternate rehabilitation land under 1999 Act barred by 45-50 year delay and laches from 1972/1977 acquisitions, original owners' acceptance of compensation without protest, and non-retrosp....
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.
Writ petition dismissed due to inordinate 63-year delay and laches; rehabilitation statutes lack retrospective effect on prior land acquisition awards attaining finality.
The State has a duty to provide timely rehabilitation and fair compensation to project-affected persons, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PESA Act, Forest Rights Act, and RTFCATILA, RAR Act, 2013 were not applicable to the petitioners' case, and the Orissa Rehabilitation and ....
Delay and laches cannot bar compensation claims for land taken without due process, as constitutional rights must be upheld.
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
