Bombay High Court
Rajaram Abahsaheb Deshmukh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 26 July, 2023
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni, Jitendra Shantilal Jain
2023:BHC-AS:20788
wp [email protected]
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9109 OF 2021
1. Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav )
Age: 64, Occupation: Agriculturist )
Residing at Pait, Taluka Khed, District: Pune )
2. Ramesh Mahadu Jadhav )
Age: 62, Occu. Agriculture )
3. Balu Mahadu Jadhav )
Age: Adult, Occ.: Agriculture )
Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 R/at Gawarwadi, )
Post Pait, Taluka Khed, District Pune )
4. Sushila Zumbar Kute )
Age: Adult, Occ.: Agriculture )
R/at Kolinde Budruk, Taluka Khed )
District Pune. ) ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) )
Pune Division, District Pune. )
2. Rajaram Abbasaheb Deshmukh )
Age: Adult, Occupation: Agriculturist )
R/at Deshmukhwadi, Taluka Khed, )
District Pune )
3. The Additional Collector )
Pune Division, District Pune )
4. The Divisional Commissioner, )
Pune Division, District Pune )
5. State of Maharashtra ) ...Respondents
AND
Page 1 of 53
__________________
26 July, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2023 08:38:08 :::
wp [email protected]
WRIT PETITION NO. 2876 OF 2022
Shri. Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh )
Age: 75, Occupation: Agriculture )
R/o. Deshmukhwadi, Taluka Khed, )
District : Pune ) ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary )
Revenue and Forest Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai. )
2. Additional Collector, Pune, )
having office in the Pune )
3. Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) )
Pune, having office at 4th Floor, Pune Zilla )
Parishad Building, Pune - 411 001. )
4. Tahsildar, Taluka-Khed, )
Office at Khed, Dist - Pune )
5. Circle Officer, Nanekarwadi )
having office at Ground Floor, )
Chakan Nagarparishad, Chakan, )
Tal - Khed, Dist - Pune. )
6. Talathi, Village - Nanekarwadi )
having office at Ground Floor, )
Chakan Nagarparishad, Chakan, )
Tal - Khed, Dist - Pune. ) ...Respondents
____________
Mr. Gaurav Potnis with Mr. Harshad Sathe for Petitioner in WP No.
9109/21.
Mr. Drupad Patil with Mr. B. G. Ligade for Petitioner in WP No.
2876/22 and for Respondent No.2 in WP No. 9109/21.
Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for State.
_____________
Page 2 of 53
__________________
26 July, 2023
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2023 08:38:08 :::
wp [email protected]
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
RESERVED ON: JULY 13, 2023
PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 26, 2023.
JUDGMENT (Per G.S.Kulkarni, J.):
The judgment has been divided into the following parts:
Contents Paragraphs Nos.
A Preface 1 to 4
B Facts 5 to 25
C Reply-Affidavits of Rajaram and State Government and 26 to 33
Rejoinder.
D Submissions on behalf of petitioner Kaluram and others 34
[Petitioners in Writ Petition No.9109 of 2021]
E Submissions on behalf of Rajaram (Respondent No.2 in 35
Kaluram's petition and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2876
of 2022).
F Analysis and Conclusion. 36 to 55
A. Preface:-
1. The petitioners in these two petitions are seeking reliefs in respect
of the same land, and in this regard the orders passed by the Revenue
authorities exercising powers under the Maharashtra Project Affected
Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for short, the "said Act"), are the subject
matter of challenge in the present proceedings.
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
2. The petitioners in both the petitions are claiming to be project
affected persons of an irrigation project known as "Bhama Aaskhed
Project" (for short, the "said project"). They claim that being project
affected persons falling under the provisions of the said Act, they were
entitled for grant of an alternate land on account of the submergence of
their land as originally owned by the petitioners, which were acquired for
the purpose of the said project. The claim is thus that they have become
landless although they had received land acquisition compensation,
however, they opted for benefits of allotment of alternate land as per the
provisions of the said Act.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Shri Rajaram Abasaheb
Deshmukh (for convenience referred to as "Rajaram"), who is respondent
no.2 in the first writ petition, has filed the companion writ petition being
Writ Petition No. 2876 of 2022 praying that he be put in possession of
the land, as he was legitimately allotted the land in question. It needs to
be noted that both the petitions were heard together by a co-ordinate
bench of this Court and by a judgment and order dated 29 April, 2022,
these petitions were disposed of in terms of the following operative order
passed by this Court:-
"7] In the light of above, following order is passed :
i] The impugned orders dated 02.01.2020 and
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
17.02.2020 are set aside.
ii] The parties shall appear before the Deputy Collector,
Pune Division, Pune on 30.05.2022 and put-forth their stand.
iii] The Deputy Collector, Pune shall consider the stand
of the parties and take decision afresh with regard to allotment of
land from Gat No.401/3 situated at Nanekawadi, Taluka-Khed,
District-Pune.
iv] The decision shall be taken preferably within 3
months from the date of appearance of parties before the Authority.
v] Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs."
4. Rajaram had challenged the above order passed by this Court before
the Supreme Court in the proceedings of Civil Appeal Nos. 8014-8015 of
2022 which came to be allowed by the Supreme Court by a judgment and
order dated 04 November, 2022 whereby the proceedings of both the
petitions were remitted to this Court for decision of such petitions afresh
in accordance with law and on its own merits. The relevant extract of the
orders passed by the Supreme Court reads thus:-
"4. Now so far as the impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court is concerned the High Court
has set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed
by the Deputy Collector solely on the ground that orders were
passed by the Deputy Collector without jurisdiction and
therefore, the same is coram non-judice. However, it is
required to be noted that the Deputy Collector was directed
to take a fresh decision pursuant to order dated 11.10.2019
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WP No.
3126/2019 which was as such in the writ petition filed by
respondent No.1 - Kaluram Jadhav. The order dated
11.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
in WP No. 3126/2019 by which the Deputy Collector was
directed to take a fresh decision attained the finality.
Therefore, the High Court ought not to have set aside orders
dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy
Collector on the ground that the same was without
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
jurisdiction and coram non-judice. At this stage, it is required
to be noted that after order dated 02.01.2020, the said order
was sent to the Collector and thereafter, the formal order of
allotment dated 17.02.2020 was passed. Therefore, the High
Court has seriously erred in setting aside orders dated
02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on the ground that the Deputy
Collector was not having jurisdiction and therefore order is
coram non judice. Under the circumstances impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court
quashing and setting aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and
17.02.2020 on the aforesaid ground is unsustainable.
However, at the same time as the High Court has not
considered the legality and validity of orders dated
02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits and has not
considered the rival claims of the respective parties on merits,
the matter is required to be remanded to the High Court for
fresh decision to consider the legality and validity of orders
dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above
the impugned common judgment and order dated
29.04.2022 passed by the High Court quashing and setting
aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 is hereby
quashed and set aside. The subsequent order dated
02.08.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Pune
Division, which has been passed pursuant to the impugned
common judgment and order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the
High Court is also quashed and set aside. The matter is
remitted to the High Court to decide the aforesaid writ
petitions afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.
6. Now, the High Court to consider the legality and
validity of orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on
merits. It will be open for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (in Civil
Appeal arising out of WP No. 9109/2021) to file
impleadment application(s) before the High Court and make
the submissions before the High Court as they were heard by
the Deputy Collector. The Writ Petition Nos. 2876/2022
and 9109/2021 are ordered to be restored on the file of the
High Court for a fresh decision on merits as observed
hereinabove. The present appeals are accordingly allowed.
However, it is made clear that we have not expressed anything
on merits in favour of either party on the legality and validity
of orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 and the claims
made by the rival parties and it is ultimately for the High
Court to consider the legality and validity of the aforesaid
orders in accordance with law and on its own merits. The
present appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. No costs."
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
B. Facts:-
5. In some detail the facts are:- It is not in dispute that the petitioners
in both the petitions namely Kaluram Jadhav (for convenience referred to
as "Kaluram") and others (petitioners in the first petition) and Rajaram
(petitioner in the second petition) are project affected persons.
6. The subject matter of the controversy is land bearing Gat No.
401/3 admeasuring 0.67 Ares situated at Village Nanekarwadi, Taluka -
Khed, District - Pune (for short, "the said land"). As set out in the writ
petition filed by Kaluram, Rajaram had filed a representation before the
Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) for allotment of an alternate land as his
land was acquired for the purpose of the said project. Such application
dated 30 November, 2007 was rejected by the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) by an order dated 29 October, 2015. Rajaram, being
aggrieved by the said order passed by the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation), approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2639
of 2017. In the said writ petition, Rajaram had inter-alia prayed for the
reliefs that the order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Respondent No.2,
Dy. Collector (Rehabilitation) Pune rejecting his claim for allotment of a
land as a Project Affected Person be set aside. He further prayed for a relief
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
that he be held entitled for rehabilitation under the provisions of
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, and for
directions to the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) Pune to allot the land
to the Petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected
Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
7. By an order dated 12 February, 2018, a Division Bench of this
Court disposed of the said petition thereby setting aside the order dated
29 October, 2015 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune
and remanding the matter to the said authority for appropriate order to be
passed after hearing Rajaram and in the light of the observations made in
the said order. The Court observed that the rejection of Rajaram's
application for allotment of alternate land, was not correct, for the reason
that Rajaram had share in the acquired land, which was jointly held by the
Rajaram along with his two brothers. It was observed that although
Rajaram's share in the land was less than 4 acres, his request could not
have been rejected on the ground that his holding was more than 16 acres.
It was thus prima-facie observed that Rajaram would be entitled for a
proportionate share in the alternative land and for such reason, a fresh
determination was required. The relevant extract of the said order passed
by the Division Bench of this Court is required to be noted which read
thus:-
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
"6. The petitioner had filed an application for allotment
of land. However, the said application was rejected by the
impugned order dated 29th October, 2015 issued by the
Respondent No.2. The petitioner was informed that he is not
entitled for an alternative land as he is holding more than 16
acres of the land.
7. It may be mentioned that the said land was jointly
held by the petitioner and his two brothers. In other words,
the petitioner was not the sole owner of the entire land which
is admeasuring more than 16 acres. The petitioner's share in
the land was less than 4 acres and hence, his request could not
have been rejected on the ground that his holding was more
than 16 acres. Even otherwise, there is no such restriction
under the Resettlement Act. Therefore, prima facie we are of
the opinion that the petitioner would be entitled for a
proportionate share in the alternative land.
8. Since the impugned order is passed without taking
into consideration the facts narrated hereinabove, we have no
alternative but to set aside the same and remand the matter
back to the Rehabilitation Officer. We accordingly dispose of
the petition by passing the following order:-
(i) The order dated 29th October, 2015 passed by the
Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune is quashed and set
aside and the matter is remanded to the Respondent No.2-
Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune. The Deputy
Collector shall pass an appropriate order after hearing the
petitioner and in the light of the observations made
hereinabove. Needless to mention that such order shall be
passed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of six weeks from the receipt of copy of this order.
9. The petitioner shall remain present before the
Respondent No.2-Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune
on 27th February, 2018 alongwith the relevant record and
copy of this order in order to enable him to comply with this
order."
8. It is thus clearly seen, that Rajaram's application as per the order
passed by this Court was required to be decided within six weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of the said order and for which, Rajaram was
required to remain present along with the relevant record before the
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) on 27 February, 2018. It further
appears that as the orders passed by this Court were not complied,
Rajaram approached this Court by filing Contempt Petition No.388 of
2018 which was filed on 07 August, 2018, on which on 25 January, 2019,
the Division Bench of this Court issued notice while making the following
observations in passing the said order:-
"1] The District Resettlement Officer had filed an
application wherein he has stated that the proposal of the
petitioner is being forwarded to the Additional Collector and
the Additional Collector is expected to pass orders. It does
appear that inspite of issuance of directions by this Court,
those have not been complied with and the Officer concerned
is merely passing on responsibility to the higher official. The
State Government as well as the District Resettlement Officer
were represented before the Court while Writ Petition No.
2639 of 2017 was disposed of.
2] In the above circumstances, we grant liberty to the
petitioner to add Additional Collector as a party respondent
to the Contempt Application. Amendment to be carried out
within one week from today.
3] Issue notice to the added respondent, returnable on
nd
22 February 2019.
4] Stand Over to 22nd February 2019."
9. In the said contempt petition, Kaluram filed an intervention
application [Civil Application (Stamp) No. 5698 of 2019] which appears
to be dated 21 February, 2019 contending that the said land was already
allotted in his favour by an order dated 31 October, 2018 passed by the
Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, Khed, Sub-Division Khed
(Rajgurunagar). He also placed on record of the contempt petition, the
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
said order passed by the said authority. Kaluram also contended that
necessary entries were made in the record of rights with respect to the said
land thereby recording his name. Kaluram contended that such allotment
was made in his favour as a project affected person, of the said project and
that he was eligible for grant of an alternate land, as the land admeasuring
4 Hector 28.4 R belonging to him was acquired for the said project as he
had become landless person. He also contended that a list of the available
lands was supplied to him, setting out that the said land was available and
he accordingly made a choice of the said land. He also pointed out that
the entire process of allotment, was undertaken in a transparent and fair
manner. He also contended that Rajaram had no vested right to claim
allotment of a particular land, which would have indirect effect of
cancellation of the allotment already made in favour of Kaluram. He also
pointed out that the authority had not yet passed order of allotment of any
alternate land and thus while taking a decision for grant of allotment of
alternate land to Rajaram, the subject land would not be available for
allotment. Kaluram also pointed out that on 18 February, 2019, Rajaram
was called by the District Rehabilitation Officer (for short, "DRO") in his
office in connection with the hearing of the application filed by brothers
of Kaluram, that their names also be mutated in the record of rights in
regard to the said land. Kaluram was informed that there was a likelihood
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
that such allotment, which was made in his favour, was likely to be
cancelled and in that event, Kaluram was required to choose another land
as alternate land for his rehabilitation as a project affected person. It is in
these circumstances, Kaluram intervened in the proceedings of the
contempt petition filed by Rajaram. It is thus stated that when Kaluram
filed his intervention application on 21 February, 2019, certainly a
decision was not taken in regard to allotment of alternate land in favour of
Rajaram in compliance with the order dated 12 February, 2018 passed by
the Division Bench on Rajaram's writ petition.
10. It appears that the contempt petition thereafter was taken up for
hearing and by an order dated 22 February, 2019, the contempt petition
was disposed of in view of a statement as made, that the direction issued
by the Court was complied with. It cannot be ascertained from the order
as to on whose behalf such statement was made. The said order reads
thus:-
". This Contempt Petition stands disposed of in view of
the statement made that direction issued by this Court has
been complied with.
2. Pending Civil Application does not survive and
disposed of.
3. Notice issued earlier stands vacated."
11. Kaluram contends that although a statement was made before the
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
Division Bench of this Court that the direction issued by the Court was
complied, however, nothing was produced before this Court either by
Rajaram or on behalf of the authorities. This was noticed, as Kaluram was
represented by his Advocate Mr. Vivek Salunke, when the Division Bench
passed the order dated 22 February, 2019.
12. Kaluram has contended that although Rajaram's contempt petition
was disposed of on 22 February, 2019, a hearing was fixed on the
application as made by his brothers for carrying out certain mutations, on
which Kaluram wanted to make submissions as also place on record his
reply, which was refused to be accepted by the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation), also an opportunity of a hearing was not granted to
Kaluram. Confronted with this, Kaluram filed his say with the office of
the Deputy Collector.
13. Kaluram has contended that on 05 March, 2019 when he visited
the office of the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) to inquire on progress
on the mutations to be carried out in respect of the said land allotted to
him, he received knowledge of two orders, firstly of the order dated 21
February, 2019 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) in favour
of Rajaram, whereby Rajaram was allotted the said land (Gat No.401/3)
admeasuring 0.67 Ares. He also received knowledge of a separate order
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
dated 05 March, 2019 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation),
Pune by which the order dated 31 October, 2018 passed in favour of
Kaluram, inter-alia allotting Gat No. 401/3 admeasuring 0.67 Ares was
cancelled on the ground that the same was allotted to Rajaram by an order
dated 21 February, 2019 and which was stated to be in pursuance of the
orders passed by this Court. The said order also recorded that new land
would now be allotted to Kaluram, in lieu of cancellation of the allotment
of the said land being Gat No. 401/3 admeasuring 0.67 Ares. This order
is quite significant considering the rival contentions, hence, is required to
be extracted, which reads thus:-
" Exhibit 'J'
[official translation from vernacular]
READ:
1) Application dated 16.11.2018 submitted by (1) Shri Ramesh
Mahadu Jadhav, (2) Shri Balu Mahadu Jadhav and (3) Sau. Sushila
Zumbar Kute.
2) Order bearing No. Sakhal/SR/1/2018, dated 31.10.2018,
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khed Sub Division, Khed
(Rajgurunagar).
3) Decisions dated 26.10.2016 and 07.02.2017 of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court, Mumbai passed in the Writ Petition no.
34787/2015 and Contempt Petition No. CP/332/2012 filed before
it.
4) Order bearing No. D.R.O/Bhama Askhed/S.R./50/2019,
dated 21.02.2019, passed by this Office.
5) Provisions in the Maharashtra Rehabilitation of the Project
Affected Persons.
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
6) Order bearing No. D.R.O/Bhama Askhed/S.R./41/2018,
dated 19.10.2018, passed by this Office.
7) Special Leave Petition (SLP) Diary No.37700/2017 and
Diary No. 37861/2017, filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
Delhi.
8) Government Circular No. Miscellaneous 02/2011/M.No.-13/
E-1, dated 29.03.2012
9) Government Circular No. RP-1512/M.No.141/Ra.-1, dated
20.07.2012.
10) Notification dated 30.09.2015, published by the Revenue
and Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra.
11) Order bearing No. D.R.O/Estt./W.S./19/2019, dated
09.01.2019, passed by the Collector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collector Office, Pune.
(Rehabilitation Branch),
No.D.R.O./Bhama Askhed /S. R.
/52/2019.
Date : 05.03.2019.
Subject Regarding the land sanctioned to the
Projected Affected persons.
---------------------------------------------
ORDER:
Whereas, Shri Ramesh Mahadu Jadhav, Shri Balu Mahadu
Jadhav and Sau. Sushila Zumbar Kute have submitted a Request
Application, referred to at Sr. No.1 above, for getting included their
names in the area that has been received in the name of Shri Kaluram
Mahadu Jadhav alone pursuant to the Order dated 31.10.2018
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khed Sub Division, Khed
(Rajgurunagar).
Pursuant to the Request Application, referred to at Sr. No.1
above, in order to file the say and to produce documentary proofs,
final hearing was conducted on the dates 29.01.2019, 18.02.2019
and 28.02.2019.
Whereas, on carrying out scrutiny of the documents into the
aforesaid matter, it was necessary that the land that had been allotted
under the Order bearing No. Sakhal/S.R./1/2018, dated 31.10.2018
by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khed Sub Division, Khed
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
(Rajgurunagar), should have been allotted in the names of three
brothers. Further, pursuant to the Order dated 22.02.2019 of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Mumbai, passed in the Petition
No.388/2018, the alternative land bearing Gat No. 401/3-Part,
admeasuring 00 Hectares and 67 Are, situated at Village -
Nanekarwadi, Taluka - Khed, District - Pune and also the land
bearing Gat No. 2276, admeasuring 00 Hectares and 53 Are, situated
at Village - Kalus, Taluka - Khed, District - Pune, has been
sanctioned to the Project Affected Person by name Shri Rajaram
Abasaheb Deshmukh, under the Order bearing No. D.R.O./ Bhama
Askhed/S.R./50/2019, dated 21.02.2019. Therefore, it is necessary
to set aside the allotment of the land bearing Gat No. 401/3, situated
at Village - Nanekarwadi, Taluka - Khed, District - Pune and to pass
an order afresh.
Therefore, in pursuance of the Application referred to at Sr.
No.1, the prayer of the Applicants is allowed. The Order bearing No.
Sakhal/S.R./1/2018, dated 31.10.2018 of the Sub Divisional Officer,
Khed Sub Division, Khed Rajgurunagar, issued in exercise of the
powers delegated under the Order bearing No.
D.R.O./Estt./W.S./19/2019, dated 09.01.2019 of the Collector, is set
aside.
As per this Office order No. D.R.O./Bhama Askhed/
S.R./50/2019 dated 21.02.2019, passed as per the directions of the
Hon'ble High Court, as the area adm.00 Hec. 67 Are from out of the
land bearing Gat No.401/3, situated at Nanekarwadi, Tal.Khed,
District Pune, has been sanctioned to the project affected person by
name Shri Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh, the project affected person
should give the Gat number of the land of new preference, within 8
days.
Particulars of the land situated at Taluka : Khed, District Pune,
sanctioned to the persons as project affected.
Name of Project affected persons Village Gat No. Sanctioned
area
1. Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav Sonvadi 31 0.70
2. Ramesh Mahadu Jadhav Nanekarwadi 401/4 0.22
3. Sau. Sushila Jhumbar Kute Koregaon Khu. 525/2 1.21
The said land is granted subject to following terms and
conditions.
1. The cultivator should bring the land under cultivation within
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
two years from the date of taking possession of the said land.
2. The cultivator should get prepared the Agreement
Form/Proforma in Form No.2 prescribed in the Maharashtra land
revenue (Disposal of government land)Rules, 1971, within one
month from the date of taking possession of the said land.
3. If the information submitted by the Applicant is found to be
false and misleading then, the said order shall be liable to be declared
as null and void, ab initio.
4. If the cultivator commits breach of any of the aforesaid
conditions or violates any Law, government resolution, circular
applicable to the project affected persons then, the said land/lands
shall become liable to be forfeited to the Government and the
amount towards the ownership right paid by - recovered from the
cultivator who has been removed from such land/lands, shall be paid
to the said cultivator or the same shall be forfeited.
5. The cultivator shall be liable to make improvement in the said
land/lands as per the instructions of the Soil Conservation Officer.
6. The grains received from the crops cultivated by the cultivator
from the said land shall be liable for levying taxes as per the
government rules or the same shall be liable to be given to the
Government for sale thereof on priority basis at the time of sale of the
said grains.
7. The cultivator shall be liable to pay the revenue in respect of
the said entire land, in one installment. However, if the land allotted
to him is a virgin land then, revenue shall not be levied on the said
land for first three years from the date of handing over the possession
of the said land.
8. The Village Kamgar Talathi should make new mutation entry
on the 7/12 extract in respect of the said land, as per the changes
made pursuant to the said order and should send the original extracts
in respect of the said land, having the entries made thereon in ink and
the extract of mutation entry, within 30 days from the date of making
the said entry, to this Office.
Place : Pune
Date : 05.03.2019
Sd/-
Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation
and Administrator,
Rehabilitation, Reinstatement,
Pune.
Copy to :-
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
1) Shri Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav, Ramesh Mahadu Jadhav, Shri
Balu Mahadu Jadhav, all three are residing at Gawarwadi, Post Pait,
Tal. Khed, District Pune and Sau.Sushila Jhumbar Kute, residing at
Kohinde Bu., Tal. Khed, District Pune
2) Tahasildar Khed, Tal. Khed, District Pune,
2/- He is requested to immediately implement the said order
and to submit the report togetherwith amended 7/12 extract and
extract of mutation entry, to this Office, within 30 days.
3) Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Khed, Tal.Khed,
District Pune.
4) Circle Officer, Nanekarwadi, Gonwadi, Koregaon Khu. and
Kamgar Talathi, Nanekarwadi, Gonwadi, Koregaon Khu., Tal. Khed,
District Pune for information and appropriate information.
2/- The Kamgar Talathi is directed to make entry of the said
order in Record of Right Register and to submit amended 7/12
extract and extract of mutation entry.
(Signature Illegible)
Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation
and Administrator,
Rehabilitation, Reinstatement,
Pune."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Copies of the said orders dated 05 March, 2019 and 21 February,
2019 were obtained by Kaluram by making necessary application to the
said authority. Kaluram was not heard before the allotment order dated
31 October 2018 was cancelled / revoked by the said order dated 05
March, 2019 passed by the Deputy Collector (Resettlement).
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, being aggrieved by the cancellation
of the land allotted to Kaluram, he immediately made a representation on
06 March, 2019 to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division,
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
submitting that a detailed inquiry be held in what he described as to be an
illegal, arbitrary and high handed manner in which Kaluram's allotment of
the subject land was cancelled. However, as there was no response to the
representation, Kaluram approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.
3126 of 2019, in which Rajaram was impleaded as respondent no.2.
16. It appears that at the level of the department, a significant activity of
relevance took place namely that the representation dated 06 March, 2019
as made by Kaluram to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division,
came to be considered by the Divisional Commissioner who inter-alia by
his order dated 04 September, 2019 directed an inquiry as to how the
Deputy Collector was conferred powers of allotment of land when as per
the Government Resolution of the year 2012, the Collector and
Additional Collector were the only officers who were conferred with the
powers of allotment of land. The Divisional Commissioner recorded that
the resettlement issues were required to be considered only by the said
officers, however, in the present case, how could the Collector assign such
powers by his order dated 09 January, 2019 on the Deputy Collector. It
was recorded that this had resulted in a situation that the Additional
Collector, Pune had no control on the orders which were being passed by
the Deputy Collector, and unilateral decisions being taken by the Deputy
Collector. For these reasons, the Divisional Commissioner directed that
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
the powers which were conferred on the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) by the District Collector were withdrawn and such
powers be exercised by the Additional Collector, Pune with effect from 06
September, 2019 and a report to that effect be forwarded to the office of
the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner also called
for an explanation on the complaint as made by Kaluram and a report to
that effect was ordered to reach the office of the Divisional Commissioner
by 10 September, 2019.
17. It appears that Kaluram's writ petition came up for adjudication
before this Court on 11 October, 2019, which is after the orders of the
Divisional Commissioner withdrawing the powers of the Deputy
Collector (Rehabilitation) to make any allotment of land by his aforesaid
order dated 04 September, 2019.
18. A co-ordinate bench of this Court by an order dated 11 October,
2019, disposed of the said writ petition, inter-alia observing that since
there were rival claims on the allotment of the alternate land, it would be
appropriate that the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) passes a fresh order
of allotment of the said land expeditiously. The said order passed by this
Court is required to be noted which reads thus:-
" The dispute in the Petition is in respect of grant of alternate
land to the project affected persons. Both, the Petitioner as well as
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
Respondent No.2, claim to be project affected persons and have
made a claim to the alternate land which is the subject matter of the
present Petition i.e. land bearing Gat No.401/3 ademasuring 0
Hectors 67 Ares situated at village Nanekarwadi, Taluka-Khed,
District-Pune. The Petitioner is essentially challenging the
cancellation of the allotment of the subject land vide order dated 5 th
March, 2019 which land was allotted to him on 31 st October, 2018.
According to the Respondent No.2, the said land was allotted to him
on 21st February, 2019.
2 We have perused the Affidavit-in-Reply fled by Respondent
No.1 - Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune Division dated 10th
October, 2019. In facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that since there are rival claims to the allotment of alternate
land, it would be appropriate that the Respondent No.1 Deputy
Collector (Rehabilitation) passes a fresh order of allotment of the said
land expeditiously, and, in any event, within a period of two months
from today after hearing all concerned. It is accordingly ordered.
3 We make it clear that the Respondent No.1 shall not be
influenced by the earlier allotment / cancellation orders and which
orders shall not be acted upon. The Petitioner, Respondent No.2 and
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall appear before the Respondent No.1
on 11th November, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.
4 The Petition to stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
(emphasis supplied)
19. It is clear from the said order that it was the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation), who was directed by this Court to pass a fresh order of
allotment of the said land expeditiously, without being influenced by the
earlier allotment/cancellation orders, which were directed not to be acted
upon.
20. It can thus be seen from the order dated 11 October, 2019 passed
by the Division Bench that the order dated 04 September, 2019 was not
pointed out to the Court, which had the legal effect of the Deputy
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
Collector (Rehabilitation) being denuded of the powers to undertake
allotment of the rehabilitation lands and such powers stood vested only
with the Additional Collector as per the Government directives of 2012 as
clarified by the Divisional Commissioner setting aside such delegation
made by him by the order dated 09 January, 2019.
21. It appears that in pursuance of the order dated 11 October, 2019
passed by the Division Bench on Kaluram's writ petition, the order dated
02 January, 2020 came to be passed by the Deputy Collector whereby
allotment of land bearing Gat No.401/4 (not subject matter of dispute)
came to be confirmed in favour of Kaluram, directing Kaluram that a
separate demand application be made for balance 0.67 Ares of land in
view of cancellation of allotment of the subject land i.e. Gat No. 401/3
admeasuring 0.67 ares. In so far as Rajaram was concerned, allotment of
the subject land i.e. Gat No. 401/3 admeasuring 0.67 Ares was confirmed.
The operative order passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) is
required to be noted which reads thus:-
[official translation from vernacular]
" ORDER
1. This Office order bearing No. DRO/Bhama
Aaskhed/SR/52/2019, passed on the date 05/03/2019 in respect of
allotment of the land bearing Gat No. 252/2 area admeasuring 1 H.
21 Are, situated at Village - Gonvadi, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune and the
land bearing Gat No. 401/4 area admeasuring 0 H. 22 Are, situated
at Village - Nanekarwadi, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune to Shri Kaluram
Mahadu Jadhav and 3 others is hereby set aside and this land is
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
allotted by passing order afresh. As regards the land of remaining 67
Are area, they are once again informed to make a separate demand
jointly.
2. This Office order bearing No. DRO/Bhama/
Aaskhed/SR/50/2019, passed on the date 21/02/2019 in this matter,
in favour of the applicant Shri Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh is set
aside and as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court order is
passed afresh to allot him the land bearing Gat No. 401/3 area
admeasuring 0 H. 67 Are, situated at Village - Nanekarwadi, Tal
Khed, Dist. Pune and the land bearing Gat No. 2276 area
admeasuring 0 H. 53 Are, situated at Village Kalus, Tal. Khed, Dist.
Pune. This decision should be informed to all the concerned
persons."
(emphasis supplied)
22. It appears that thereafter on 17 February, 2020 another order was
passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) confirming the allotment
of land bearing Gat No. 401/3 admeasuring 0.67 Ares in favour of
Rajaram which inter-alia recorded that the said land was allotted in favour
of Rajaram in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 3126 of 2019. The order also sets out the terms and conditions on
which the said land was allotted in favour of Rajaram. On the same day,
i.e. on 17 February, 2020, another order came to be passed by the Deputy
Collector (Rehabilitation) confirming allotment of the land inter-alia land
bearing Gat No.401/4 along with the other land in favour of Kaluram.
23. It is on the above backdrop, being aggrieved by the orders dated 02
January, 2020 and 17 February, 2020 passed by the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation), Kaluram has filed Writ Petition No. 9109 of 2021
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
praying for the following reliefs:-
"(a) By suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 02.01.2020 and
order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the present Respondent No. 1 to
the extent the said Order allotted the subject land i.e. land bearing
Gat No. 401/3 admeasuring 0 Hectors, 67 Ares situated at Village
Nanekarwadi, Taluka Khed, District Pune in favour of the
Respondent No. 2 and consequently, the allotment of the subject
land in favour of the Petitioner vide Order dated 31.10.2018 be
restored.
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.
3 to 5 to take suitable action against the Respondent No.1.
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition,
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect, implementation,
operation and execution of the impugned Orders dated 2.01.2020
and 17.02.2020 passed by the present Respondent No.1."
24. On the other hand, Rajaram has filed the companion petition (Writ
Petition No. 2876 of 2022) praying for implementation of order dated 17
February, 2020 (challenged by Kaluram) passed in his favour by the
Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) and for handing over possession of the
land Gat No. 401/3. The substantive prayers in the writ petition filed by
Rajaram read thus:-
"(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
or any other Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and be pleased
to direct the Respondents to forthwith record the name of Petitioner
in 7/12 extract of lands bearing Gat No. 401/3 situated at village
Nanekarwadi in Taluka Khed, Dist. - Pune as directed vide order
dated 17.2.2020 being Exhibit H to this Petition.
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
or any other Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and be pleased
to direct the Respondents to forthwith hand over possession of land
admeasuring 0 H. 67 R bearing Gat No. 401/3 situated at village
Nanekarwadi, Taluka Khed as allotted vide order dated 17.2.2020
being Exhibit H to this Petition."
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
25. As noted above, both the writ petitions were heard by a co-ordinate
bench of this Court and by an order dated 29 April, 2022 (Supra), the
same were disposed of by setting aside the orders dated 02 January, 2020
and 17 February, 2020 and directing the parties to appear before the
Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune Division, Pune on 30 May,
2022. By the said order, the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) was
directed to consider the stand of the parties and take a decision afresh with
regard to allotment of land from Gat No. 401/3 situated at Nanekarwadi,
Taluka-Khed, District-Pune. The said order dated 29 April, 2022 passed
by this Court was, however, set aside by the Supreme Court by its order
dated 04 November, 2022 as noted by us above. The direction of the
Supreme Court in the said order is to the effect that this Court should
consider the legality and validity of the orders dated 02 January, 2020 and
17 February, 2020 on merits by restoring both the petitions to the file of
this Court, for a fresh decision on merits. The Supreme Court also made
it clear that the Supreme Court has not expressed anything on merits in
favour of either party on the legality and validity of the orders dated 02
January, 2020 and 17 February, 2020 and the claims made by the rival
parties and it is ultimately for this Court to consider the legality and
validity of the said orders in accordance with law and on its own merits. It
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
is on such conspectus, the parties are before us.
C. Reply-Affidavits.
Reply-Affidavit of Rajaram.
26. Reply affidavit dated 10 April, 2022 has been filed by Rajaram to
the petition filed by Kaluram, inter-alia contending that there were
internal disputes in Kaluram's family and therefore, although the
allotment order dated 31 October, 2018 was passed, neither the requisite
amounts in respect of such allotment could be made by Kaluram with the
State Government, nor the possession of the said land was handed over to
Kaluram. It is next contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short,
the "SDO") who passed the order dated 31 October, 2018 in favour of
Kaluram was not well versed with the provisions of the said Act and he
had hurriedly taken a decision on 31 October, 2018 to allot the land in
favour of Kaluram. It is contended that he had not considered the fact
that the other project affected persons also had shown interest in the said
land. He next contended that the application dated 09 May, 2018 filed by
him seeking allotment of Gat No. 401/3 was pending before the District
Rehabilitation Officer (for short, "the DRO"). Referring to the
proceedings of his application dated 09 May, 2018 seeking allotment of
Gat No. 401/3 and the proceedings which were taken up by him before
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
this Court, it is contended that the said land (Gat No.401/3) was reserved
for allotment to him, however, the SDO was not aware about the said fact
when he allotted the said lands to Kaluram vide an order dated 31
October, 2018. Rajaram has next contended that in pursuance of the
order dated 11 October, 2019 passed by this Court on Writ Petition No.
3126 of 2019 when the matter was considered afresh, Kaluram had not
raised any objection for such order to be passed and had agreed for a fresh
decision to be taken by the DRO. It is contended that Kaluram also
suppressed the letter dated 04 September, 2019 of the Divisional
Commissioner, Pune, Division by which the Divisional Commissioner
directed the Additional Collector to take a fresh decision and not the
Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation). Rajaram has contended that according
to the directions of this Court, he had appeared before the Deputy
Collector (Rehabilitation) who had passed the impugned order dated 02
January, 2020 and the consequent approval to the said allotment order by
his order dated 17 February, 2020, as assailed. It is thus contended that it
hence needs to be presumed that the allotment order dated 17 February,
2020 was issued by the Additional Collector. It is next contended that
Kaluram had accepted such allotment order, as also he had executed
registered Agreement to Sale dated 15 October, 2020 for consideration of
Rs. 85 Lakhs in respect of land bearing Gat No. 31 (not the subject land)
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
which was allotted to him vide an order dated 17 February, 2020, which
was subject matter of acquisition by the MIDC in respect of which, a land
acquisition award was also passed on 09 November, 2020 and Kaluram
had received an amount of Rs.85 Lakhs as compensation. It is his
contention that although the allotment in respect of the subject land being
Gat No.401/3 was set aside, one of the petitioners (petitioner no.4)
Sushila Kute, sister of Kaluram, executed registered Agreement to Sale
dated 27 January, 2022 for consideration of Rs. 10 Lakhs being her share.
It is, therefore, contended that Kaluram, in these circumstances, ought not
to be granted any reliefs on his petition.
Reply-Affidavit on behalf of the State Government
27. A reply affidavit dated 25 March, 2023 is also filed by Shri. Sandesh
Shirke, District Resettlement Officer, which is a common affidavit on both
the petitions. He has inter-alia stated that on 27 February, 2018 Rajaram
had applied for various Gat numbers other than Gat No. 401/3, to which
the Additional Collector on 27 March, 2018 had commented that
Rajaram should apply for land from Ambethan, Koregaon Khurd and
Akshed Budruk. It is stated that Rajaram for the first time applied for the
land admeasuring 40 Ares from Gat No. 401/3 of Village Nanekarwadi
(subject land) on 07 April, 2018 and the Additional Collector on 27
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
April, 2018 made a 'Tipani' (Note) recording that Rajaram be given land
from Village Kalus. It is stated that thereafter again an application was
made by Rajaram on 09 May, 2018 reiterating that allotment of land
admeasuring 40 Ares from Gat No. 401/3 at Nanekarwadi and the
Additional Collector on 29 May, 2018 directed that the land either from
Kalus or Daund be given to Rajaram by way of lucky draw. It is stated
that thereafter again Rajaram applied on 16 October, 2018 and the
Additional Collector granted consent on 20 October, 2018 to the Tipani
(Note) prepared for allotment of 1 Hector 20 Ares from Gat No. 2276 of
Village Kalus to Rajaram (not the subject land). It is next contended that
under an order dated 19 October, 2018, a camp was held on 31 October,
2018 for the benefit of all project affected persons of the said project. In
such camp, not only the person who had been directed by the High Court
to be rehabilitated, but all persons who had deposited 65% of the land
acquisition compensation as received by them were required to attend
such camp and apply for allotment of land as per the gat numbers which
were made available in a list for rehabilitation. It is stated that Rajaram
did not attend the camp. Kaluram attended the camp and applied for
rehabilitation. As a result of which, 0.67 ares from Gat No. 401/3
(subject land) was allotted to him along with Gat No. 31, 401/4 and
252/2 from village Gondwadi, Nanekarwadi and Koregaon subject matter
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
of the allotment order dated 31 October, 2018. It is stated that along with
Kaluram, other 67 persons were allotted the land on the same day. Such
camp was specifically held to rehabilitate project affected persons from the
said project and Gat No. 401/3 was part of the land available for allotment
in the camp as allotted to Kaluram.
28. It is next stated that on 21 February, 2019, the DRO passed an
order cancelling Kaluram's the allotment of 0.67 Ares from Gat No.
401/3 of village Nanekarwadi (subject land) and thereafter allotment of
the said land was made in favour of Rajaram on 05 March, 2019. It is
stated that the Divisional Commissioner, Pune after going through the
records in the case, had come to a conclusion that grave injustice was
caused to Kaluram and his brothers when the order of allotment for 0.67
Ares from Gat No. 401/3 from village Nanekarwadi was cancelled by the
then DRO Mr. Bharat Waghmare. Considering the record, the Divisional
Commissioner had directed the District Collector to revoke the powers of
allotment of the DRO, pursuant to which the powers of DRO were
removed by way of an order dated 05 September, 2019.
29. It is stated that the said orders dated 21 February, 2019 and 05
March, 2019 were challenged before this Court by Kaluram on which this
Court had passed an order dated 11 October, 2019 directing the DRO to
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
decide on the allotment for the said land afresh. It is stated that in
pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, considering all the
complaints received by the then DRO Mr. Bharat Waghmare, an order
was issued by the Additional Collector on 07 January, 2020 directing the
revenue authorities not to implement the orders passed by the then DRO
Mr. Bharat Waghmare. It is stated that on 02 January, 2020 and 17
February, 2020, the DRO however passed orders in favour of Rajaram
which are challenged before this Court in the present proceedings. The
said orders were set aside by this Court vide an order dated 29 April, 2022
and thereafter the said order (dated 29 April, 2022) passed by this Court
was set aside by the Supreme Court with direction to this Court to decide
the writ petitions on merits.
30. It is stated that the DRO also filed his reply before the Supreme
Court. It is stated that there was no specific direction of this Court to allot
the said land to Rajaram. The Additional Collector vide his decision on
29 October, 2018 had directed that land admeasruing 1 Hector 20 Ares
from Gat No. 2276 of village Kalus be allotted to Rajaram, as a result of
which, such land could only be allotted to Rajaram and not 0.67 Ares
from Gat No. 401/3 of village Nanekarwadi. It is contended that Rajaram
was only entitled to an area of 1 Hector 20 Ares of land as a part of the
rehabilitation process and that he was not a landless person as he held 3
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
acres of land, whereas Kaluram and his brothers had become landless after
acquisition and were entitled to rehabilitation on priority basis as per the
rules.
31. It is next contended that the file of Rajaram was kept before the
Additional Collector on 3 separate occasions for approval of the note
(Tipani) for allotment of land of Gat No. 401/3 and on all the three
occasions, the Additional Collector had either rejected or directed
allotment from some other Gat number to Rajaram. It is stated that
despite this fact, the then DRO allotted the Gat No.401/3 to Rajaram
which point of time its was already allotted to Kaluram. It is next
contended that the DRO had allotted 0.67 Ares from Gat No.401/3 of
village Nanekarwadi to Rajaram, but there was no application on record to
show that Rajaram had applied for 0.67 Ares from Gat No. 401/3. It is
stated that allotment of the subject land in favour of Kaluram was prior in
time and was in consonance with the order dated 19 October, 2018
passed by the Collector read with order dated 30 October, 2018 passed by
the SDO, Khed who was granted powers to make allotment to the project
affected persons of the said project. It is stated that Rajaram never applied
for 0.67 Ares from Gat No.401/3 from village Nanekarwadi, but had only
restricted his application to 40 Ares from Gat No. 401/3 of village
Nanekarwadi. Hence allotment of more land than what was applied for is
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
against the public policy. It is accordingly contended that the orders dated
02 January, 2020 and 17 February, 2020 cancelling the allotment in
favour of Kaluram and his brothers and allotment of land in favour of
Rajaram was incorrect as from the record, it was clear that the Additional
Collector by his approval dated 29 October, 2018 had directed that 1
Hector 20 Ares from village Kalus should be allotted to Rajaram. Hence,
the then DRO could not have allotted any other land to Rajaram. It is
thus contended that only Kaluram and his brothers were entitled to land
admeasuring 0.67 Ares from Gat No. 401/3 of village Nanekarwadi and
the same would be in consonance with the order dated 19 October, 2018
passed by the Additional Collector and the allotment order dated 31
October, 2018.
Rejoinder Affidavit of Rajaram.
32. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Rajaram which is a common
rejoinder to the reply affidavit filed by the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation), thereby justifying the impugned orders dated 02 January,
2020 and 17 February, 2020. Rajaram has reiterated his contentions as
urged in the reply-affidavit. According to Rajaram, the orders passed by
the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) dated 02 January, 2020 and 17
February, 2020 were accepted by Kaluram. It is alleged that affidavit
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
dated 25 March, 2023 of the DRO is filed with malafide intention to
provide undue advantage to Kaluram. It is stated that there are incorrect
statements made in the said affidavit.
33. It is on the above backdrop, we have heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Submissions on behalf of Kaluram and others:-
34. Mr. Potnis, learned counsel for Kaluram and others has made
detailed submissions. He submits that when the impugned orders were
passed, no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioners. It is
submitted that Kaluram had never asked for a specific land and the land
which was allotted to him in the camp which was undertaken on 31
October, 2018, was from the land which was available in the pool of lands
and which was being offered to number of co-allottees who were 67 in
numbers and who attended the camp. It is his submission that on the day
the allotment of land in question was crystalized in favour of Kaluram,
even remotely Rajaram was not all in the picture, so as to have any legal
right to claim the said land. It is his submission that thus priority of
allotment was certainly in favour of Kaluram and he was legitimately
allotted the other land. It is submitted that in fact it is clear from the reply
affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that Rajaram in no
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
manner was concerned for allotment of the subject land and in fact he was
allotted land in Village Kalus. It is his submission that Rajaram's case in
regard to Sale Deed being entered by Kaluram is nothing but a ploy to
prejudice the Court in as much as there was no dispute pending in respect
of land - subject matter of Sale Deed and the same was sold legitimately.
In any case, in regard to sale of the said land, there cannot be any dispute
whatsoever as Rajaram never claimed the said land and undisputedly the
said land was always legitimately and legally allotted to Kaluram. It is
submitted that even otherwise the said land was acquired by a procedure
known to law, by the MIDC and it was the MIDC which had paid
compensation to Kaluram and others. It is next contended that, in so far
as, the Agreement to Sale dated 27 January, 2022 is concerned, the same
is not entered by Kaluram, but has been entered in respect of a share by
petitioner no.4 who is one of the allottees. It is his submission that in any
case such Agreement to Sale was entered on a belief that the land had
stood legally allotted in favour of Kaluram and other family members. It
is his submission that in any event Agreement to Sale would not create any
vested right in the purchasers and it is purely an issue between petitioner
no.4 and purchasers of the said land who has paid Rs. 10 Lakhs to
petitioner no.4 and this was not to the knowledge of Kaluram and
Kaluram was not a confirming party to the said agreement. It is hence his
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
submission that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) were totally illegal and without jurisdiction and nullity in
the eyes of law. Such order was passed to favour Rajaram was in brazen
violation of the law and the rules. In raising there contentions we have
been taken through the various orders passed by Mr. Bharat Waghmare,
the Deputy Collector to contend that the impugned orders passed by him
are patently illegal and were intended to benefit Rajaram. It is hence
submitted that the petition (Writ Petition No. 9109 of 2021) deserves to
be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of Rajaram:-
35. On the other hand, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for Rajaram would
submit that the impugned orders dated 02 January, 2020 and 17
February, 2020 are legal and valid. It is his submission that allotment of
land in favour of Kaluram was validly cancelled, as the same was already
allotted to Rajaram and in respect of which a statement was also made
before this Court in the proceedings of Contempt Petition No. 388 of
2018 and accepting such statement, the contempt petition was disposed of
by an order dated 22 February, 2019. It is his submission that in fact, the
allotment of the land in question in favour of Kaluram itself was not
effected on following proper procedure, in as much as Rajaram had
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
already made a claim in respect of the said land and which was subject
matter of his contention in writ petition No. 2639 of 2017. It is,
therefore, his contention that what has been done by the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) by the impugned order is as per law and would not call
interference. It is submitted that in fact, Kaluram has taken law into his
hands when he has entered into the sale deed as also petitioner no.4 has
entered into an agreement to sale. It is his submission that these
documents are suppressed from the Court and therefore, on this count
alone, the petition filed by Kaluram deserves to be dismissed, as no litigant
is entitled to approach the Court with unclean hands in seeking
discretionary and equitable reliefs. Mr. Patil would hence submit that the
allotment of the land in question in favour of Rajaram be disturbed and
the impugned orders be upheld.
Analysis and Conclusion:
36. The question, which falls for determination, is as to whether the
impugned orders dated 02 January 2020 and 17 February 2020 as assailed
by Kaluram allotting the said land (Gat No.401/3) in favour of Rajaram
and for consequential revenue entries to be made in that regard, are legal
and valid. As noted above, there is a chequered history to this litigation.
Both Rajaram as also Kaluram had earlier approached this Court in their
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
respective writ petitions. The parties are litigating and are before this
Court since the year 2018 in the multiple proceedings. Earlier Rajaram's
plea in his writ petition was of non-allotment of a land as a project affected
person. Now the dispute between the parties is in respect of one plot of
land namely subject land bearing Gat No. 401/3. The record to which we
have referred in some detail, would indicate that Rajaram had earlier
approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2639 of 2017 praying for the
following reliefs:-
"(a) Rule be issued, records and proceedings of the case be
called for and after examining the legality, validity and
propriety thereof, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash
and set aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2015 passed by
the Respondent No.2, Dy. Collector (Rehabilitation) Pune
being Exhibit "I" to this Writ Petition;
(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the
Petitioner is entitled for rehabilitation under the provisions of
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act,
1986;
(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue
appropriate directions to the Respondent No.2 Deputy
Collector (Rehabilitation) Pune to allot the land to the
Petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Project
Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986;
(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present
Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass
appropriate directions to the Respondent No.2, Dy. Collector
(Rehabilitation) Pune to allow the land in favour of the
Petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Project
Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986."
37. It is clear from the above prayers that none of the reliefs as prayed
by Rajaram was for a writ that Rajaram be allotted land bearing Gat No.
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
401/3 admeasuring 40 Ares, namely the subject land. The above reliefs
were prayed for, in the light of an order dated 29 October, 2015 passed by
the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune who had held that Rajaram
was not entitled to an alternate land. On such backdrop, a Division Bench
of this Court by an order dated 12 February, 2018 while disposing of
Rajaram's writ petition, set aside the order dated 29 October, 2015 passed
by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), with a further direction that he
shall hear Rajaram in the light of the observations as made in paragraphs 6
and 7 which we have already noted above and pass fresh orders.
38. It appears, which is also clear from the reply affidavit of Shri
Sandesh Shirke, District Resettlement Officer filed on behalf of the State
Government that in respect of the project in question namely "Bhama
Aaskhed Project", there were number of project affected persons who were
awaiting allotment of alternate land and in respect of whom, a camp was
held on 31 October, 2018 which was attended by about 67 persons who
were eligible and were considered, for allotment of alternate lands.
Kaluram was one of 67 persons who were project affected persons, who
attended the camp as he had applied for rehabilitation. A list of the lands
available for allotment was made available to all such persons who
attended the camp. One of the lands was subject land bearing Gat No.
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
401/3 which was opted for allotment by Kaluram and accordingly,
Kaluram was allotted the land in question along with two other lands vide
an order dated 31 October, 2018, the details of which are as under:-
Name of the sanctioned Gat No. Area of land granted
village
Goanwadi 31 0.70
Nanekarwadi 401/3 0.67 (subject land)
401/4 0.22
Koregaon Khurd 252/2 1.21
39. It also appears from the record that although Rajaram was pursuing
his applications for allotment of an alternate land as a project affected
person, under the office notings (Tipani) of the Additional Collector,
Rajaram's application in regard to allotment of land bearing Gat No.
401/3 was not accepted by the Additional Collector. To this effect,
averments are made in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit of the District
Resettlement Officer which reads thus:-
"3. I say that I have gone through the various documents on
record, the various notes/Tipanis, various order/ comments of the
District Rehabilitation Officer and the order/ comments of the
Additional Collector. Copy of the Various notes/Tipnis from the
records are hereto collectively annexed and marked as EXHIBIT R-1.
I say that on 27/02/2018 Rajaram Aba Deshmukh had applied for
various Gat Numbers other than Gat Number 401/3. To this the
Additional Collector on 27/3/2018 has commented that Rajaram
Aba Deshmukh should apply for land from Ambethan, Koregaon
Khurd and Akshed Budruk. Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh for the
first time applied for 40 R from Gat Number 401/3 of Village
Nanekarwadi on 07/04/2018 and the Additional Collector on
27/04/2018 allowed the Tipani which said that Rajaram Aba
Deshmukh be given land from Village Kalus, thereafter again 40 R
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
from Gat Number 401/3 of Nanekarwadi was applied on
09/05/2018 and the Additional Collector on 29/05/2018 directed
that land either from Kalus or Daund may be given to Rajaram Aba
Deshmukh by way of luck draw, thereafter Rajaram Aba Deshmukh
again applied on 16/10/2018 and the Additional Collector granted
consent on 29/10/2018 to the Tipani/Note prepared for allotment of
1H-20R from Gat No.2276 of Village Kalus to Rajaram Aba
Deshmukh."
40. There are some aspects which are quite intriguing namely as to what
had happened in the proceedings of Contempt Petition No. 388 of 2018
filed by Rajaram. Such contempt petition was filed as according to
Rajaram, the order passed by this Court on Writ Petition No. 2639 of
2017 was not complied by the authorities. In such proceedings, Kaluram
had intervened and had placed on record that already an order dated 31
October, 2018 was passed in his favour, whereby the land in question i.e.
Gat No. 401/3 was allotted to him in the camp and to that effect, an order
dated 31 October, 2018 was passed in his favour. On 25 January, 2019
when the contempt petition was listed before the Division Bench, the
DRO had informed the Court that the proposal of Rajaram was being
forwarded to the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector is
expected to pass orders and in this view of the matter, the Additional
Collector was permitted to implead as a party respondent to the petition.
On such backdrop when the Contempt Petition was next listed before the
Court on 22 February, 2019, it was disposed of in view of the statement
made [as noted above] and on whose behalf such statement was made, is
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
not reflected in the order passed by this Court when the Court recorded
that the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 12 February,
2018 passed on Writ Petition No. 2639 of 2017 were complied with. In
that view of the matter, the civil application filed by Kaluram as also the
contempt petition were disposed of and the notice issued was vacated.
What intrigues us is that no order of allotment of any land was placed
before the Court when it was being stated that the orders stood complied.
41. It appears to us that having obtained such orders from the Division
Bench in the contempt proceedings, the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation)
passed an order dated 05 March, 2019 inter-alia observing that in view of
the orders passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No. 388 of 2018
dated 22 February, 2019, Rajaram is required to be allotted an alternate
land which inter-alia included the subject land Gat No.401/3 and for such
reason, the allotment of Gat No. 401/3 is required to be cancelled. The
relevant portion of the said order is required to be noted which reads
thus:-
" [official translation from vernacular]
Whereas, on carrying out scrutiny of the documents into the
aforesaid matter, it was necessary that the land that had been allotted
under the Order bearing No. Sakhal/S.R./1/2018, dated 31.10.2018
by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khed Sub Division, Khed
(Rajgurunagar), should have been allotted in the names of three
brothers. Further, pursuant to the Order dated 22.02.2019 of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Mumbai, passed in the Petition
No.388/2018, the alternative land bearing Gat No. 401/3-Part,
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
admeasuring 00 Hectares and 67 Are, situated at Village -
Nanekarwadi, Taluka - Khed, District - Pune and also the land
bearing Gat No. 2276, admeasuring 00 Hectares and 53 Are, situated
at Village - Kalus, Taluka - Khed, District - Pune, has been
sanctioned to the Project Affected Person by name Shri Rajaram
Abasaheb Deshmukh, under the Order bearing No. D.R.O./ Bhama
Askhed/S.R./50/2019, dated 21.02.2019. Therefore, it is necessary
to set aside the allotment of the land bearing Gat No. 401/3, situated
at Village - Nanekarwadi, Taluka - Khed, District - Pune and to pass
an order afresh.
Therefore, in pursuance of the Application referred to at Sr.
No.1, the prayer of the Applicants is allowed. The Order bearing No.
Sakhal/S.R./1/2018, dated 31.10.2018 of the Sub Divisional Officer,
Khed Sub Division, Khed Rajgurunagar, issued in exercise of the
powers delegated under the Order bearing No.
D.R.O./Estt./W.S./19/2019, dated 09.01.2019 of the Collector, is set
aside.
As per this Office order No. D.R.O./Bhama Askhed/
S.R./50/2019 dated 21.02.2019, passed as per the directions of the
Hon'ble High Court, as the area adm.00 Hec. 67 Are from out of the
land bearing Gat No.401/3, situated at Nanekarwadi, Tal. Khed,
District Pune, has been sanctioned to the project affected person by
name Shri Rajaram Abasaheb Deshmukh, the project affected person
should give the Gat number of the land of new preference, within 8
days.
Particulars of the land situated at Taluka : Khed, District
Pune, sanctioned to the persons as project affected.
Name of Project affected persons Village Gat No. Sanctioned
area
1. Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav Sonvadi 31 0.70
2. Ramesh Mahadu Jadhav Nanekarwadi 401/4 0.22
3. Sau. Sushila Jhumbar Kute Koregaon Khu. 525/2 1.21
(emphasis supplied)
42. At this juncture, we may observe that the order dated 05 March,
2019 was passed by the Mr. Bharat Waghmare, Deputy Collector
(Resettlement) on the premise that such order was being passed on the
direction of the Division Bench in its order dated 22 February, 2019
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
passed in Contempt Petition No. 388 of 2018 that Rajaram be allotted
Gat No. 401/3. Such recital is clearly seen from the order dated 05
March, 2019 which for convenience we have re-extracted hereinabove
and more particularly when such order of the Division Bench was nothing
but to dispose of the contempt petition, merely recording the statement
(whose statement is a question mark) that the order has been complied
and it is on such basis, the order dated 31 October, 2018 passed in favour
of Kaluram allotting the land Gat No. 401/3 was cancelled. We may thus
observe that the order dated 22 February, 2019 allotting the subject land
in favour of Rajaram could not have recorded that the same was being
passed in pursuance of the directions of the Division Bench in its order
dated 22 February, 2019, as projected in the order dated 05 March, 2019.
Considering the backdrop of the proceedings, in our opinion, it appears to
be a deliberate attempt of the concerned officer namely Mr. Bharat
Waghmare, Deputy Collector to misread the orders of this Court to favour
Rajaram, there cannot be any other inference from the different orders as
passed by the said officer in favour of Rajaram. In fact, this officer was
aware about the allotment of the subject land in favour of Kaluram.
43. Sequentially there is another event which has taken place namely
the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division questioning the authority of
the Deputy Collector as delegated to him by the Collector by an order
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
dated 09 January, 2019 to exercise powers under the said Act and
revoking such powers, vide his communication dated 04 September, 2019
addressed to the Collector, Pune. We have already extracted the said
order of the Divisional Commissioner in the foregoing paragraphs.
However, the fact that such order dated 04 September, 2019 being passed
by the Divisional Commissioner, who is the highest revenue officer for the
Pune Division, as empowered by the provisions of the Act, was not
brought to the notice of the Division Bench or was suppressed by the
concerned officer when the order dated 11 October, 2019 was passed on
Writ Petition No. 3126 of 2019. As a consequence of the said order, the
Deputy Collector's powers to make allotment of lands to project affected
persons were taken away. Thus there were serious legal consequences
which were brought about by the Divisional Commissioner revoking the
authority and power of the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) to exercise
powers of allotting alternate lands under the provisions of the said Act.
This more particularly considering the provisions of Section 7 of the said
Act, which confers specific powers on the Commissioner to do so. The
said provision reads thus:-
"7. Delegation of powers to subordinate officers. - (1) The State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such
restrictions and conditions, delegate such of the powers conferred and duties
imposed on the Commissioner or the Collector or the project authority by or
under this Act to such officers of the State Government or local authority as it
may deem proper and expedient.
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
(2) The Commissioner or the Collector may, by order in writing, delegate
such of the powers conferred and duties imposed on him by or under this Act,
--
(a) to such officer not below the rank of Tahsildar; or
(b) to such officers of the State Government or local authority as, with
the approval of the Commissioner, may be specified in the order.
(3) The project authority may, by order in writing, delegate such of the
powers conferred and duties imposed on it by or under this Act to such officers
not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Officer, Deputy Engineer, Assistant
Engineer, Assistant Conservator of Forests."
44. However, at the relevant time, Kaluram was not informed/
communicated of the above order passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
in such situation, it was too natural for Kaluram to approach this Court to
assail the order dated 05 March, 2019 passed by the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) cancelling a valid allotment made in favour of Kaluram
allotting the subject land vide an order dated 31 October, 2018 for which,
he filed Writ Petition No. 3126 of 2019. Such writ petition came to be
disposed of in terms of the order dated 11 October, 2019 passed by the
Division Bench observing that as there were rival claims to the allotment
of alternate lands, it would be appropriate for the Deputy Collector to pass
a fresh order of allotment of the said land expeditiously and within a
period of two months from the date of the said order. However, as noted
above, the order dated 04 September, 2019 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner revoking the powers of the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) was not pointed out to the Division Bench when the
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
Division Bench passed the said order dated 11 October, 2019.
45. Thus as Mr. Potnis would urge that the position on the record of
the Government was that Mr. Bharat Waghmare, the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) could not have exercised powers to pass any order
contrary to the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 04
September, 2019. He would submit that it is clearly seen that delegation
of powers by the District Collector in favour of the Deputy Collector was
made by an order of the District Collector dated 09 January, 2019.
However, Mr. Bharat Waghmare, the concerned Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) oblivious to the orders dated 04 September, 2019 (who is
also the same officer who has passed the orders dated 05 March, 2019 and
21 February, 2019) passed the impugned order dated 02 January, 2020,
whereby he cancelled the order dated 05 March, 2019 passed by him
thereby confirming Kaluram's allotment in respect of Gat No.252/2
(admeasuring 1 Hector 21 Ares) and Gat No. 401/4 (0.22 Ares) as
allotted to him vide the order dated 31 October, 2018 and in so far as the
balance land of 0.67 Ares was concerned (subject matter of disputed Gat
No. 401/3) ordering that a separate application in that regard be made by
him. However, in so far as the subject land [Gat No. 401/3 (0.67 Ares)]
was concerned, he confirmed the allotment of the same to Rajaram, afresh
labelling it to be in compliance of the orders of this Court by cancelling
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
the earlier order dated 21 February, 2019. It is submitted that he further
passed a consequential order dated 17 February, 2020 being the
impugned order, directing that further appropriate steps be taken and
consequential revenue entries be made in respect of allotment of the
subject land in favour of Rajaram, which is the subject matter of challenge
in this petition.
46. Although Mr. Potnis has pointed out the aforesaid position to us on
record, as also on behalf of the State Government pointing out the
illegality of the orders passed by Mr. Bharat Waghmare, Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation), we may note the observations of the Supreme Court in
paragraph 4 of its order, on the authority of the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) which according to Mr. Potnis, do not consider the order
dated 09 September, 2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner
revoking the authority of the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation). He
submits that the said orders of the Divisional Commissioner were not
challenged by Rarajram in any proceedings. The said observations of the
Supreme Court read thus:-
""4. Now so far as the impugned common judgment and order
passed by the High Court is concerned the High Court has set aside
orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy
Collector solely on the ground that orders were passed by the Deputy
Collector without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is coram non-
judice. However, it is required to be noted that the Deputy Collector
was directed to take a fresh decision pursuant to order dated
11.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WP
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
No. 3126/2019 which was as such in the writ petition filed by
respondent No.1 - Kaluram Jadhav. The order dated 11.10.2019
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WP No.
3126/2019 by which the Deputy Collector was directed to take a
fresh decision attained the finality. Therefore, the High Court ought
not to have set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed
by the Deputy Collector on the ground that the same was without
jurisdiction and coram non-judice. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that after order dated 02.01.2020, the said order was sent to
the Collector and thereafter, the formal order of allotment dated
17.02.2020 was passed. Therefore, the High Court has seriously
erred in setting aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on
the ground that the Deputy Collector was not having jurisdiction and
therefore order is coram non judice. Under the circumstances
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court
quashing and setting aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020
on the aforesaid ground is unsustainable. However, at the same time
as the High Court has not considered the legality and validity of
orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits and has not
considered the rival claims of the respective parties on merits, the
matter is required to be remanded to the High Court for fresh
decision to consider the legality and validity of orders dated
02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 on merits."
47. On such backdrop, also considering the mandate of the orders
passed by the Supreme Court, the scope of adjudication of the present
proceedings, is in regard to the merits of the rival claims of Kaluram and
Rajaram.
48. It is quite clear that when the allotment of the land in question was
made in favour of Kaluram vide an order dated 30 October, 2018,
certainly, Rajaram was in no manner affected as prior thereto the land in
question was already not allotted in favour of Kaluram. However, it
appears that Rajaram kept asserting his claim in respect of the subject land
Gat No.401/3 and to the extent of 40 Ares which was not accepted by the
Additional Collector.
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
49. It is neither the statutory scheme nor any legal right of a project
affected person to demand a particular plot of land. It appears that Gat
No. 401/3 was allotted in favour of Kaluram in a transparent manner and
as the same was available, that too in a camp which was attended by 67
project affected persons, who were granted allotment alongwith Kaluram.
Thus Kaluram with others was the legitimate beneficiary of Gat No.
401/3 (0.67 Ares). Merely on an assertion of Rajaram which in our
opinion was not at all legitimate, by an arbitrary and a high handed
manner an order dated 05 March, 2019 was made in his favour, whereby
Kaluram's allotment of the subject land was cancelled merely on the
insistence and assertion of Rajaram and the same was sought to be allotted
in favour of Rajaram.
50. Having examined the record carefully, we are of the opinion that
the entire attempt of the concerned Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) Mr.
Bharat Waghmare to pass orders dated 05 March, 2019, 21 February,
2019, 02 January, 2020 and 17 February, 2020 was certainly aimed to
cause illegal benefit of allotment of the subject land in favour of Rajaram,
keeping aside the legitimate vested entitlement of Kaluram, who was
validly allotted the land vide an order dated 31 October, 2018. Moreover,
as pointed out in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government, the entire exercise which was undertaken by Mr. Bharat
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
Waghmare, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) to pass such orders in
favour of Rajaram was illegal. Rajaram was not entitled to so much land
which was not even his application. This is clear from the following
statements as made in the reply affidavit of Shri Sandesh Shirke filed on
behalf of respondents:-
"6. I say that the Divisional Commissioner, Pune after going
through the records in this case had come to a conclusion that grave
injustice was done to Kaluram Jadhav and his brothers when the
order of allotment for 67 R from gat no. 401/3 from village
Nanekarwadi was cancelled by the then District Rehabilitation
Officer, Mr. Waghmare. Considering the record, the Divisional
Commissioner had directed the District Collector to remove the
powers of allotment of the District Rehabilitation Officer. Pursuant
to which the power of DRO were removed by way of order dated
05/09/2019.
....
8. Furthermore, considering all the complaints which have been
received the then District Rehabilitation Officer, Mr. Waghmare, an
order was issued by the Additional Collector on 07/01/2020
directing the revenue authorities not to implement the orders passed
by the then District Rehabilitation Officer to the Mr. Waghmare. A
copy of the order 07/01/2020 is hereto annexed and marked as
Exhibit R-3.
......
12. I say that there is no specific direction from the Hon'ble High
court to allot the said Land to Rajaram Aba Deshmukh. The
Additional Collector vide his decision on 29/10/2018 had directed
that 1H-20R from Gat 2276 of Village Kalus to Rajaram Aba
Deshmukh. As a result of which only this land could be allotted to
Rajaram Aba Deshmukh and not 67 R from Gat 401/3 of village
Nanekarwadi.
13. Rajaram Aba Deshmukh is only entitled to an area of 1H-20R
of land as part of the rehabilitation process. I say that Rajaram Aba
Deshmukh is not a landless person and held more than 3 acres of
land. I say that Kaluram Jadhav and his brothers have become
landless after acquisition and were entitled to Rehabilitation on
priority basis as per the rules set out in order dated 19/10/2018.
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
14. I say that file of Rajaram Aba Deshmukh was kept before the
Additional Collector on 3 separate occasions for approval of the note/
Tipni for allotment of land of Gat Number 401/3. On all the 3
occasions the Additional Collector had either rejected or directed
allotment some other Gat Number to Rajaram Aba Deshmukh. I say
that despite the above mentioned facts the then DRO proceeded to
allot the Gat Number 401/3 to Rajaram Aba Deshmukh which at
that point was already allotted to Kaluram Jadhav.
15. I say that the then DRO has allotted 67 R from Gat Number
401/3 of village Nanekarwadi to Rajaram Aba Deshmukh, but there
is no application on record to show that the Rajaram Aba Deshmukh
had applied for 67R from Gat Number 401/3 of village
Nanekarwadi. I say that allotment of Kaluram Jadhav was prior in
time and was in consonance with order dated 19/10/2018 passed by
the collector read with order dated 30/10/2018 passed by the SDO,
Khed who had been granted powers to allot the land to project
affected persons of Bhama Askhed Project. I say that Rajaram Aba
Deshmukh had never asked for 67R from Gat No. 401/3 from
village Nanekarwadi but had only restricted his application to 40R
from Gat No. 401/3 of village Nanekarwadi and hence to allotment
of more land than what was applied for is against the public policy.
16. With regards to order dated 02/01/2020 and 17/02/2020, I
say that the order of cancellation of allotment in favour of Kaluram
Jadhav and his brothers and allotment of land in favour of Rajaram
Aba Deshmukh is incorrect. I say that from the record it is clear that
the Additional Collector by his approval dated 29/10/2018 had
directed that 1H-20R from village Kalus should be allotted to
Rajaram Aba Deshmukh. Hence the then DRO could not have
allotted any other land to Rajaram Aba Deshmukh.
17. I say that in view of the above facts and circumstances only
Kaluram Jadhav and his brothers are entitled for 67R from gat no.
401/3 of village Nanekarwadi and the same would be consonance
with the order of the Collector dated 19/10/2018 and the allotment
order dated 31/10/2018."
51. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is writ large that the
impugned orders dated 02 January, 2020 and 17 February, 2020 passed
in favor of Rajaram by the District Resettlement Officer are illegal and
consequently they are required to be set aside.
__________________
26 July, 2023
wp [email protected]
52. We accordingly allow Writ Petition No. 9109 of 2021 filed by
Kaluram in terms of prayer clause (a). We order that the appropriate
revenue entries in regard to Gat No. 401/3 (admeasuring 00.67 Ares)
situated at Village Nanekarwadi, Taluka - Khed, District - Pune, be made
in favour of the petitioners (Kaluram and others). No costs.
53. Writ Petition No. 2876 of 2022 filed by Rajaram is dismissed with
cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal
Services Authority within two weeks from today.
54. At this stage, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for Rajaram, seeks stay of
this order.
55. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the request for stay is
rejected.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]
__________________
26 July, 2023
