Bombay HC Imposes Cost, Quashes Orders Passed By District Resettlement Officer For ‘Illegal’ Land Allotment In Pune
|While setting aside the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities exercising powers under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act,1999, the Bombay High Court allotted the subject land to the petitioner and further directed the revenue entries to be made in favour of the petitioner for 0.67 acres of the subject land.
Consequently, one of Rajaram’s (second respondent) petitions was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
The High Court further ruled that the entire attempt of the Deputy Collector to pass orders dated Mar 05, 2019, Feb 21, 2019, Jan 02, 2020, and Feb 17, 2020, were certainly aimed to cause illegal benefit of allotment of the subject land in favour of second respondent, keeping aside the legitimate vested entitlement of petitioner, who was validly allotted the land vide an order dated Oct 31, 2018.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Jitendra Jain and Justice G.S. Kulkarni noted that the Divisional Commissioner, the highest revenue officer for Pune Division had revoked Deputy Collector's powers to allot rehabilitation lands and the same was not brought to the notice of the Bench or was suppressed by the officer concerned when it issued the order in favour of second respondent.
“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”, added the Bench.
The Bench also noted that “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”.
The Bench stated that it was neither the statutory scheme nor any legal right of a project-affected person to demand a particular plot of land, since the subject land was allotted in favour of the petitioner 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 along with petitioner, thus he was the legitimate beneficiary of the subject land.
“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”, added the Bench.
Advocate Gaurav Potnis appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Drupad Patil appeared for the Respondent.
The brief facts of the case were that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent over the allotment of one 0.67 acres of land situated at Village Nanekarwadi, Pune. Both parties claimed to be project-affected persons of an irrigation project known as the ‘Bhama Aaskhed Project’ entitled to rehabilitation land under the Act of 1999 in terms of grant of alternative land on account of the submergence of their land. Initially, the second respondent filed a petition challenging the non-allotment of land to him. The High Court had set aside the order rejecting his claim and directed authorities to hear him and pass fresh orders accordingly. Subsequently, a camp was held on Oct 31, 2018, where 67 project-affected persons including the petitioner were allotted rehabilitation lands and the petitioner was allotted 0.67 acres of subject land among other two lands. However, the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) then cancelled the petitioner's allotment and allotted the same land to the second respondent which was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court.
After considering the submission, the Bench noted that there had been a checkered history between the parties with multiple litigations and it appeared that the Deputy Collector misread the orders of the Court in different proceedings in favour of the second respondent and that he was aware about the allotment of the subject land in favour the petitioner.
The High Court found that the Deputy Collector had arbitrarily cancelled the petitioner's valid allotment to benefit the second respondent and observed that he had no legal right to demand a particular plot of land.
In view thereof, the High Court concluded that the orders passed in favour of the second respondent by the District Resettlement Officer were illegal and consequently were required to be set aside.
Cause Title: Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav and Ors. v. The Deputy Collector and Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment