Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8192 OF 2022
Dnyanu Bhiku Tanpure
Since deceased through LR’s
Suresh Dnyane Tanpure ..Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune & Ors. ..Respondents
Shankar Abaji Kshirsagar
(Since deceased through LR)
1-A. Arun Shankar Kshirsagar ..Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune ..Respondents
Ms. M. S. Bane. AGP for State in WP No.8192 of 2022.
Mr. Rajan S. Pawar, AGP for State in WP No. 8202 of 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are praying for similar reliefs. For convenience, we note the prayers as Kiran Kawre 19 July, 2023 made in Writ Petition No.8192 of 2022 which reads thus:
2. The petitioners claim to be the project affected persons. Insofar as the first petition is concerned, the petitioner therein is claiming rights qua the land in question through his predecessor Dnyanu Bhiku Tanpure. Insofar as the petitioner in the second petition is concerned, it is contended that he is claiming rights in respect of the land in question through his predecessor Shankar Abaji Kshisagar. It is contended that they hold lands at Village Wada, Tq. Khed, District Pune. The details of which are set out in both the petitions in paragraph No.2.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that the lands of the predecessors were acquired for Chaskaman Irrigation Project, in respect of which the land acquisition award was rendered on 21 March 1989 and 31 March 1989 respectively. The case of the petitioners is to the effect that they would be entitled to alternate land. The petitioners have made specific averments in the petitions that petitioners have never received a notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for short the “1999 Act”). It is their contentions that after passing of the award the respondents particularly the Collector, ought to have prepared proposals in one or more stages from time to time as the circumstance may require for rehabilitation of the affected persons from the affected Zone under the project, and publish a notice containing such proposals. However, no such proposal was prepared.
4. The primary contentions as urged by Mr. Deshpande in both these petitions is that the respondents never issued a notice under Section 16(2) (a) of the 1999 Act to the petitioners, who are project affected persons, calling upon to them to communicate their willingness to accept the grant of land within the stipulated period and it is in these circumstances, the petitioner would be hit by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the 1999 Act, and it would be presumed that the petitioners have fortified their right to get allotment of the alternate land. It is thus submitted that there was no alternative for the petitioners but to approach this Court praying for a direction that the respondent issues a notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the 1999 Act to the petitioner, and after such a notice is issued, the petitioners would communicate their willingness and thereafter the petitioner be permitted to deposit 65% of the amount of compensation received by the petitioners and thereafter respondents shall allot the petitioners land in the beneficial zone of the Irrigation project. Mr. Deshpande, in support of such contention, has drawn our attention to the land acquisition awards which are annexed to the petition which itself are of the year March, 1989 as noted above.
5. We have heard Mr. Deshpande and Ms. Bane, learned AGP. We have also perused the record.
6. At the outset to appreciate the contentions as urged by the petitioners we note the provisions of Section 16 of the 1999 Act, which reads thus:
7. On a plain reading on sub section (1) of Section 16, the consequence which would be brought about is to the effect that a project affected person who is desirous for allotment of plot or land or both in the area shown for the purpose in the scheme published under Section 15, is eligible to make an application to the Collector in the prescribed form for grant of land or plot, and subject to such rules as may be prescribed. It is lawful for the Collector to grant land acquired under Section 14 to such affected person with the occupancy status on the land held by him earlier, to grant a plot of land to such affected persons, in a new gaothan or extended part of the existing gaothan etc., which shall be according to the provisions of Part-III and Part-IV of the schedule and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed and subject to the proviso to the subsection (1). Insofar as the petitioners case in the present proceeding is concerned, we are concerned with sub-section (2) of Section 16 which provides that a project affected person eligible for grant of land or plot under sub-section (1) shall forfeit his right to get the same, if firstly, he fails to communicate his willingness to accept the grant of land or plot made to him, to the Collector within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt by him, of a notice in that behalf from the Collector, and secondly, if he fails to deposit with the Collector, towards occupancy price of the land, 65% of the amount of compensation which he has received for his land which is acquired from him in the affected zone or, of the likely cost of the land to be granted to him under sub-section (1), whichever is less, at the time of payment of such compensation to such affected persons. Subsection (1) of Section 16 is required to be read in conjunction with subsection (2). The petitioner has not annexed to the present petition the scheme which was published under Section 15. The date of the scheme is also not set out in the petition, even assuming that immediately after the land acquisition award was made, such a scheme was notified and that too under the law in regard to the project affected persons as prevailing at that time. This for the reason that the 1999 Act was not prevalent and was brought into force only from 1 April, 2002.
8. Notwithstanding the above basic infirmities, the petitioner almost after 33 years of the land acquisition award in question, addressed a letter dated 4 May, 2022 in the second case i.e. Writ Petition No.8202 of 2022 that the petitioner is required to be allotted alternate land and that he should be permitted to deposit 65% of the amount of the land acquisition compensation received under the land acquisition award for claiming allotment of alternate land. In the said letter dated 4 May, 2022, the petitioner has surprisingly stated that the Section 16(2)(a) notice be issued to the petitioner. Insofar as the first petition is concerned, no such representation was made and therefore, for the first time in regard to the land acquisition award of the year 1989, the said petitioner directly by approaching this Court, is making a prayer that the respondents be directed to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the 1999 Act.
9. On a perusal of the averments as made in the petition, there is not a whisper in regard to such gross and inordinate delay of more than 33 years in filing present proceedings of both these petitions. In any event, such a prayer which is on the basis that no notice under Section 16(2)(a) was received at the relevant time in the year 1989, is itself a disputed question of fact as the original land owners/ predecessors of the petitioners appear to have not raised such issue, if that be so the petitioners are precluded from raising the same for the first time that too after such long long lapse of time. Thus, such issue cannot be gone into the present proceedings. It could not have also been agitated in a civil suit after such a long lapse of 33 years of which the petitioners are aware and for such reason, this is a chance litigation, a total abuse of the process of law. Even otherwise, it is beyond one’s imagination as to how such plea as taken in the petition can at all be entertained as the plea is that the predecessor of the petitioner had not received a notice. The successor cannot maintain such assertion and a claim.
10. This apart, the prayer for issuance of a notice under Section 16(2) (a) is made under the 1999 Act, when the land acquisition in question took place in the year 1989 is totally untenable. The land acquisition awards in question are of the year 1989 when the 1999 Act, itself was not brought into force and what was prevailing at that point of time was the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act 1976 (for short the 1976 Act) which did not have the provision of Section 16 as has been prayed for in the prayers so as to be made applicable. We are not shown by Mr. Deshpande, any provision under the 1999 Act, which has been made applicable retrospectively, and more particularly, Section 16 of the 1999 Act, to have a retrospective application, in respect of any acquisition of land prior to the 1999 Act being brought into force. We note that the relevant provisions of the 1976 Act, in regard to issuance of public notice calling upon displaced persons to state if they intend to have alternate land for Resettlement, was Section 19, and the corresponding provision for forfeiture of any claim was Section 23. For the sake of completeness, we refer to Section 19 and Section 23 of the 1976 Act, which reads thus:
11. We accordingly find that all the contentions as raised by the petitioner are without any basis and are totally unmindful to the applicable provisions of law. Section 16 was certainly not applicable in the given facts. It was the 1976 Act which was applicable under which no contention can be asserted. The petitioner has completely overlooked such legal position.
12. A relief of such nature, even otherwise cannot be granted after about 33 years from the date of land acquisition. The petition is also hopelessly barred by delay and laches. For such reasons, there is no warrant whatsoever to consider the prayers as made in the petition.
13. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. We refrain from imposing costs. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]