Bombay High Court
Kaushlyabai Champatrao Jagdhane vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 July, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 7345.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7345 OF 2015
Smt. Kaushalyabai W/o Champatrao Jagdhane,
Age : 72 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Dhangar Pimpri, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna,
At Present Ram Mandir Galli,
Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Help and Rehabilitation,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The District Collector,
Collector Office Building,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna.
3. The Deputy Collector/
District Rehabilitation Officer,
Collector Office Building,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna. .. Respondents
Shri Swapnil A. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri B. V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 27TH JULY, 2016.
2 wp 7345.15
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties taken up for final hearing.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
land of the petitioner is acquired vide award dated 09.11.1998.
Because of the acquisition of the land, the petitioner has become
landless. The petitioner on 16.07.2013 had applied for the
allotment of alternate land. The said application is rejected on
the ground that the petitioner has not deposited 65% amount of
compensation. According to the learned counsel, at no material
point of time the petitioner was issued with notice by the
Collector asking her, her willingness to accept the grant of the
land or the plot as is required U/Sec. 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra
Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for the sake of
brevity hereinafter referred as to the "Act of 1999"). The learned
counsel submits that, as no notice was issued to the petitioner,
the respondents cannot now take the plea of delay. According to
the learned counsel, the petitioner is ready to deposit 65%/75%
amount of compensation as per the scheme of the Act of 1999.
3. Mr. Virdhe, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that, as the petitioner failed to deposit 65% amount of
compensation, the application of the petitioner is rejected. The
petitioner has approached belatedly. As per the provisions of the
3 wp 7345.15
Act of 1999, the petitioner has to make an application within 45
days, however, the petitioner approached after fifteen years. The
learned A. G. P. relies on the order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No. 5847 of 2012 with connected writ petitions dated
17th October, 2012.
4. We have considered submissions canvassed by learned
counsel for respective parties. The application of the petitioner is
rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed to
deposit 65% amount of compensation, as such is ineligible for
allotment of alternate land/plot.
5. The affidavit in reply filed by the State, nor the order
depict any notice being issued by the authority to the petitioner
asking her willingness to accept the grant of the land or plot
made to her. The provision of Sub Section 2(a) of Sec. 16 of the
Act of 1999 makes it clear that the affected persons eligible for
the grant of land or plot under Sub Section 1 of Sec. 16 of the Act
of 1999 forfeits his/her right to get the same if she fails to
communicate her willingness to accept the grant of land or plot
made to her to the Collector within a period of 45 days from the
date of receipt by her of the notice in that behalf from the
Collector. As it is not shown by respondents that, they had at
any point of time issued notice to the petitioner. The ground
raised by respondents cannot be substantiated.
4 wp 7345.15
6. In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed
and set aside. The respondent authority i. e. the respondent No.
3 shall reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of
alternate land/plot considering provisions of Sec. 16(1) and (2)(a)
of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act,
1999 and take decision on its own merits expeditiously and
preferably within nine (09) months from the date of this order.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/July 16
