Bombay High Court
Shri. Pandurang Sakharam ... vs Shri. Uddhav Anandrao Kadam And ... on 16 August, 2017
WP 3139-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3139 OF 2014
Pandurang Sakharam Ghorpade .. Petitioner
V/s
Uddhav Anandrao Kadam & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Sachin Pawar for the petitioner.
Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State.
Mr. P.J. Thorat for respondent nos.1 to 3.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. &
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 16th AUGUST 2017
P.C.:
The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking
physical and actual possession of the lands in Gat Nos. 497/1B/1
and 462/1/A/1 with all easement to the petitioner admeasuring 64
Ares and 40 Ares respectively in the said lands which are situated in
Village Malgaon, Taluka and District Satara.
2. A detailed reply affidavit is filed by the respondent -
Land Acquisition & Resettlement Officer explaining the problem with
the above two lands. According to the respondent Authority, on 17 th
July 2010 and 6th August 2010, paper allotment of lands and
ABS 1 of 4
WP 3139-2014
possession was done, so far as these two Gat numbers, in favour of
the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent no.5 was complaining that
respondent no.4 was obstructing the petitioner to cultivate the land
in Gat No. 462/1/A/1. Therefore, he requested the Tahsildar to
remove the obstruction by exercising powers under section 21 of the
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 read
with Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906. On 21st July 2011 by exercising
powers under the Mamlatdar Courts Act, the Tahsildar directed
respondent nos.1 to 4 to provide physical possession of the said
lands with all easementary rights to the petitioner. Necessary
directions were given to respondent no.4 not to interfere with the
peaceful possession of the lands.
3. According to the respondent - Resettlement Officer, since
there was dispute of land bearing Gat No.497/1B/1, as respondent
nos.1 to 3 were not ready to hand over physical possession of the
said land but were ready to hand over physical possession of Gat No.
185 situated at Malgaon, Taluka and District Satara, petitioner was
called to receive another land. However, the petitioner did not show
any interest to come and receive the said land under a panchanama
on 21st March 2013. According to the Resettlement Officer, when
alternate land at Village Malgaon is shown, the petitioner should not
insist upon the land in Gat No. 497/1B/1.
4. Then coming to Gat No. 462/1/A/1, the said land is with
respondent no.4. Even so far as this land, the Resettlement Officer is
ABS 2 of 4
WP 3139-2014
ready and wiling to provide alternate land from the benefit zone of
Dhom Project within 3 months. According to the Resettlement
Officer, total entitlement of the petitioner is 2 Hectares 80 Ares and
is allowed to receive only 1 Hectare 74 Ares. The Resettlement
Officer is willing to give another 1 Hectare 6 Ares as well from the
same benefit zone of Dhom Project.
5. The petitioner might have raised a technical ground in
the present writ petition contending that prior to cancellation of
allotted land in his favour, no notice was given to him. Apparently,
except the paper allotment, physical possession of the land was
never handed over to the petitioner. On the other hand, the
petitioner was approaching the respondent Authority and the
Tahsildar constantly seeking removal of encroachment and handing
over vacant possession of the said lands. Apparently, the lands are
not allotted to third parties. The lands are allowed to be retained by
the owner of the lands. Instead of those two lands from the very
same owner, other lands are taken. When compared to the grievance
of the owner to that of the project affected person, since he was not
the owner of this land, we are of the opinion that he may not insist
upon allotment of a particular land. As long as the allotted land in
the same benefit zone of Dhom Project is free from encumbrance, we
are of the opinion that the petitioner should not have any grievance.
The Resettlement Officer has come forward to provide suitable
alternate land in the same benefit zone of Dhom Project. Therefore,
ABS 3 of 4
WP 3139-2014
we are of the opinion that there need not be any direction as sought
in the writ petition and we dispose of the writ petition directing the
Resettlement Officer to complete the process of allotment as well as
putting the possession of the land in favour of the petitioner within
6 months from today.
(N.M. JAMDAR, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE
ABS 4 of 4
