Bombay High Court
Nilesh S/O Fakir Khadke vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Divisional ... on 12 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:17197-DB
1 wp2507.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2507/2022
Nilesh S/o Fakir Khadke,
age 24 Yrs., Occ. Labour,
R/o Talai (Rly.), Post Sawlikheda,
Taluka Dharni, Dist. Amravati. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati.
2. District Collector and President of
District Rehabilitation Committee,
Amravati.
3. Divisional Forest Officer and
Member District Rehabilitation
Committee, Amravati.
4. Dy. Forest Conservator,
Melghat Tiger Project, Akot,
Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dharni,
Tq. Dharni, Dist. Amravati. ... Respondents
2 wp2507.2022
-----------------
Ms. Payal S. Kaware, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos.1 to 5.
----------------
CORAM :- SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESAI &
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED :- 12.12.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Anuja Prabhudesai, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent.
2. The petitioner seeks direction against respondent
Nos.2 to 4 to treat him as 'separate family' entitled for
rehabilitation package including other benefits extended by the
State to project affected persons, with further direction to pay the
rehabilitation package of Rs.10,00,000/- including other benefits
given by the State to other project affected persons of Talai
(Railway), District Amravati as per Government Resolution dated
3.11.2012.
3 wp2507.2022
3. The respondent No.4 had acquired the land situated
at village Talai (Rly.) Sawlikheda, Taluka Dharni, District
Amravati for reservation and preservation of Melghat Tiger
Reserve and the villagers includes the petitioner and his family
were rehabilitated at Deongaon. The father of the petitioner was
given the benefit of the scheme and was paid an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- under Government Resolution dated 13.11.2012.
The petitioner claims that he being above 18 years of age and
project affected person is also entitled for rehabilitation package
under the Government Resolution dated 3.11.2012. Several
representations made by the petitioner to the Authorities seeking
benefit under the rehabilitation scheme went unanswered.
Furthermore, in the list dated 1.1.2019 the petitioner was shown
to be ineligible for the benefits under the scheme for the reason
that he was not found to be residing in the village at the relevant
time.
4 wp2507.2022
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader does not
dispute that the father of the petitioner has been granted benefit
of the scheme under the said Government Resolution. He also
does not dispute that the petitioner being above 18 years of age,
was otherwise eligible for the said benefit. Learned Additional
Government Pleader contends that the Authorities declined to
grant benefit to the petitioner since as on the date of the
inspection the petitioner was not available in the village.
5. It is pertinent to note that as per clause 14 of the
Government Resolution person claiming benefit under the
scheme is required to produce either of the three documents i.e.
(i) Form No.8-A of Grampanchayat (Gao Namuna 8-A), (ii)
ration card and (iii) election card to prove his eligibility. The
record reveals that the petitioner had indeed produced the ration
card as well as election card before the authority to prove that he
was a resident of the affected village. The said documents have
not been considered as at the time of inspection as the petitioner
was not found at the address mentioned in the said documents.
5 wp2507.2022
Suffice it to say that fact that the petitioner was pursuing his
education at a different place would not lead to an inference that
he was not a resident of the said village. Moreover the record also
shows that similarly placed persons, whose names are reflected at
serial Nos.22, 23 and 25, are held to be eligible and have been
granted benefit under the Government Resolution dated
3.11.2012. In such circumstances, the petitioner, who is also a
project affected person, could not have been discriminated and
denied the benefit solely on the ground that he was not found in
the village on the date of inspection.
6. Hence we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause
(i) and (ii) and thereby direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to
consider the petitioner as 'separate family' entitled for
rehabilitation package including other benefits granted by the
State to similarly situated project affected persons.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESAI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/12/2023 12:27:33
