2026:BHC-AS:2007-DB JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY RAJESH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MANE Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE WRIT PETITION NO.3597 OF 2023 Date: 2026.01.17 12:11:48 +0530 Nandan Bala Sawant Since deceased through Legal Heir Dattatray Nandan Sawant ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Collector & Ors. ...Respondents _______

Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande a/w. Ms. Rachana Harpale a/w.

Ms. Anjali Shinde, for Petitioner.

Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for Respondent- State.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 07 JANUARY 2026 Oral Order (Per: Aarti Sathe, J)

1. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following substantive reliefs:-

“The Petitioner, therefore, most respectfully pray that---

A. this Hon'ble Court may, by way of appropriate Writ Order or direction, direct the respondents to issue notice u/s 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 to the Petitioner and after the Petitioner communicate willingness and deposit an amount of 65% of the amount of compensation received by them further direct the Respondents to allot to the Petitioner land in the beneficial zone of Chaskaman Irrigation Project as per their entitlement, preferably Gat no.118 in village Dingrajwadi, Tal-

Shirur, Dist-Pune etc.

B. All other just and necessary Orders may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. It is the Petitioner’s case that he is the owner of land bearing gat no. 12/A/1B admeasuring 0H and 46 R situated at Village: Wada, Taluka: Khed , District: Pune (hereinafter referred to as the said land). Further by an award bearing no. LAQ(7) SR 92(3) 87 dated 15th June 1989 declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 7, Pune (SLAO), the Petitioner’s land stood acquired under the Chaskaman Irrigation Project. The said Award was passed in the year 1989. It is therefore the Petitioner's contention that on account of the Maharashtra Project Affected Person Rehabilitation Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the State Government was under an obligation under Section 10 of the Act to rehabilitate the persons affected by allocating alternate land to them.

3. Though the award has been passed in the year 1989, the Petitioner has made an application under Section 16 of the Act to get alternate land after a period of 33 years, i.e., on 22nd September 2022. It is therefore the Petitioner's contention that considering his application under Section 16 of the Act is pending and no notice under Section 16(2)(a) has been served upon him, the Petitioner has a continuing cause of action in respect of his claim of alternate land.

4. The Respondents have contended that this petition is not maintainable on account of gross delay and laches in as much as the Petitioner is seeking benefits under an Award made under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1989 and there is no explanation for making an application in 2022, which is after a period of 33 years of passing the award. It is hence contended that the petition be dismissed on account of gross delay.

5. We have heard learned counsels for the Petitioner and the Respondents and have also perused the record.

6. There is no dispute over the fact that the award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1989 and the said land of the Petitioner was included in the award. If the petitioner was at all interested to avail of any benefits of an alternate land to be allotted to the petitioner, which was over and above the compensation received for acquisition of land, an appropriate prescribed procedure was required to be adopted under the statutory scheme, exercising such option/rights at the appropriate time. However, as to why for a period of 33 years the petitioner remained silent including of the change of heart after 33 years is completely alien to the statutory scheme of allotment of land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettl