SUKHDEO GOVIND GAWARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties were put to notice that the Petitions will be taken up for final disposal at admission stage. Accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel representing the Petitioners and the learned AGP for Respondents at length.

(2.) The issue in these Petitions is as regards the right of rehabilitation claimed by the Petitioners who are claiming to be project affected persons. As far as the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6195 of 2013 is concerned, he claims to be the owner of the agricultural lands more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the Petition. The Petition has been filed in his capacity as the Legal representative of his father Govind Dhondu Gawari. It is contended that the lands of the Petitioner were acquired for the submergence of Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project (for short "the said Project"). Award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the said Act of 1894") was declared on 30th April, 1997 and the possession of the said lands was taken on 28th May, 1997. It is pointed out that the Petitioner has not been resettled by allotting him a suitable land from the land pool i.e. from the benefited zone of the said Project. Reliance is placed by the Petitioners on the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for short "the said Act of 1999") and the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (for short "the said Act of 1976"). The case made out in the Petition is that it is the duty of the State Government to prepare and maintain Sankalan Register as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1989 (for short "the said Act of 1989") and the said Act of 1999. The Petitioners have contended that the Sankalan Register will show the extent of the land the project affected person is entitled to for his rehabilitation. It is contended in the Petition that at the time of or before the payment of the compensation in accordance with section 12 of the said Act of 1894, a notice should have been given to the Petitioner by the Resettlement Officer under section 16 of the said Act of 1999. In paragraph 5, it is contended that if lands are to be allotted to the affected persons, it is mandatory that a notice under section 16 of the said Acts of 1989 and 1999 should be given stating therein that the amount payable under the notice under section 12(2) of the said Act of 1894 is deductible if the project affected person wants to claim a land for rehabilitation. It is contended that the amount of occupancy price payable towards the land likely to be allotted should be incorporated in the notice. Reliance is placed on subsection 2(a) of section 16 of the said Act of 1989 and the said Act of 1999. It is alleged in the Petition that the Petitioner was not served with any notice and, therefore, he was deprived of a right to get allotment of a land for rehabilitation. By placing reliance on various provisions of the said Act of 1999, the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to a Judgment and Order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2nd May, 2011 in Writ Petition No.8385 of 2010 (Ram Shankar Deshmukh and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others and other connected matters. Prayer in this Petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus enjoining the Respondents to resettle the Petitioner by granting him a land of his choice in fixed area in the land pool of the said Project and to allow him to pay occupancy price of the land allotted to him. A direction is sought that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Shankar Deshmukh and others should be made applicable to the Petitioner and a relief be granted to the Petitioner in terms thereof.

(3.) The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.11317 of 2013 has claimed that he was the owner of the agricultural lands described in paragraph 1 of the Petition which was also acquired for submergence under the same project. Award dated 20th May, 2000 was made under section 11 of the said Act of 1894 and possession of the acquired land was taken on 31st October, 2000. The contentions raised in this Petition are more or less similar to the contentions raised by the Petitioner in Writ Petition no.6195 of 2013. The prayers are identical.