SHIVPRATAP KRISHNARAO PATANKAR Vs. YOGESH MHASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We may note the peculiarity of the present proceedings and more so, when it concerns plea of contempt being urged in regard to non- compliance of the order dtd. 5/7/2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner had contended that he is a project affected person entitled to a benefit of an alternate land under the scheme of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for short, the "1999 Act"). However, as pointed out by Ms. Bhide, learned AGP, the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1961 for the Koyna Project and for such reason the petitioner cannot be a project affected person in terms of the Act. The land acquisition award itself was rendered in the year 1961, at which point of time, as seen from the record, neither the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 or the prior Act namely the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act 1976, under which a claim for allotment of land after the said Acts came into force could be made, were in force.

(2.) The question is whether the petitioner at all had any legal right to claim an alternate land from the State Government under the garb of being a project affected person under the said Acts. Ms. Bhide submits that in fact, the petitioner was held to be not eligible by a prior order. The entitlement of the petitioner to call himself as the project affected person by taking benefit of the orders passed by this Court is an issue which would arise for our consideration, before we initiate any action for non- compliance of the orders passed by this Court and then decide whether to initiate action against the respondents for non-compliance is what is contended.

(3.) Certainly in exercising contempt jurisdiction, the Court cannot act contrary to the mandate of law and/or be oblivious to any fraud being played on the Court. This, more particularly as urged by Ms. Bhende in the present case which is in respect of a land acquisition of 1961 a claim is being made under the 1999 Act. The law in this regard is well settled. Any order, which the Court would pass, would be in aid of justice and in accordance with law.