SHRI. SANTOSH RAMCHANDRA MADNEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUNE AND ORS

                                                           wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


                   AGK
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   WRIT PETITION NO.309 OF 2020

                   Santosh Ramchandra Madne                         … Petitioner
                                        Vs.
                   The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                  … Respondents

                                              WITH
                               WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.27553 OF 2025

ATUL
                   Kondiba @ Kondu Ramji Pandhekar,
GANESH             deceased through Heirs
KULKARNI
                   Anabai Kondiba Pandhekar & Ors.                  … Petitioners
Digitally signed
by ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI                                Vs.
Date: 2026.10.07
16:27:39 +0530
                   The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                  … Respondents



                   Mr. Sumit V. Khaire for the Petitioner in WP/309/2020.
                   Mr. Nilesh Wable for the Petitioner in WPST/27553/
                   2025 & for Respondent Nos.10A to 10D and 12 in
                   WP/309/2020.
                   Mr. Y.B. Lengare with Mr. Aditya Giakwad and Mr.
                   Sunny Sadafale for Respondent No.9 in both WPs.
                   Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 8-State
                   in WP/309/2020.
                   Smt. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 8-
                   State in WPST/27553/2025.


                                     CORAM                 : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                     RESERVED ON           : OCTOBER 5, 2026

                                     PRONOUNCED ON         : OCTOBER 7, 2026



                                                     1
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


JUDGMENT:

1.   Since the questions of law and facts involved in both the
petitions are common, both the petitions are being decided by this
common judgment.

2.   The facts which have led to filing of the writ petitions are as
follows. By these petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the order
dated 2 January 2020 passed by Respondent No. 2. The land
belonging to the Petitioner was acquired for construction of the
Veer Baji Pasalkar Dam Project. Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 are
Project Affected Persons of the Veer Baji Pasalkar Dam Project. The
name of Respondent No. 10 was recorded in the 7/12 extract
pursuant to Mutation Entry No. 4 dated 17 December 1953. The
name of Dagde Chimaji Pandhekar was recorded in the 7/12
extract pursuant to Mutation Entry No. 15 dated 17 December
1953. The name of Respondent No. 11 was recorded in the 7/12
extract pursuant to Mutation Entry No. 21 dated 17 December
1953. Mutation Entry No. 114 dated 16 December 1960 records
the names of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and Vithu Chimaji
Pandhekar. The Award came to be passed on 16 January 1978. On
22 April 2013, Respondent No. 10 made an application for
allotment of land bearing Gat No. 155/4 at Boripardhi, Gat No.
173/2 at Kedgaon, Gat No. 5/2 at Patil Nimbalkar Wasti and Gat
No. 348/2 at Dapodi. Thereafter, on 9 May 2016, land bearing Gat
No. 51/2, admeasuring 00 H 81 R, and Gat No. 348/1,
admeasuring 00 H 44 R, was allotted to Respondent No. 10. On 17
June 2016, Panchanama and Tabepawati were prepared in respect
of Gat No. 348/1. Tabepawati and Panchanama were prepared in



                                 2
                                           wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


respect of Gat No. 51/2. On 13 July 2016, an application was
made for converting the land bearing Gat No. 51/2, admeasuring
00 H 36 R out of 00 H 81 R, and Gat No. 348/1, admeasuring 00
H 44 R, from New Tenure to Old Tenure. On 3 April 2017, the
Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) passed an order converting the
said lands from New Tenure to Old Tenure.

3.    On 28 April 2017, the Petitioner purchased land bearing Gat
No. 348/1, admeasuring 00 H 44 R, from Respondent No. 10.
Pursuant to Mutation Entry No. 4392, the name of the Petitioner
came to be recorded in the 7/12 extract. Prior thereto, on 27
February 2017, Respondent No. 9 had made an application before
the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. On 27 July
2017, Respondent No. 9 submitted an application to the Collector.
The Petitioner filed a reply to the application made by Respondent
No. 9. The said application filed by Respondent No. 9 was
dismissed on 14 December 2017. On 16 August 2018, Respondent
No. 9 filed a Revision Application under Section 247 before the
Additional Collector, Pune Division, Pune. On 14 November 2018,
the Revision Application filed by Respondent No. 9 was forwarded
to the Additional Collector by the Deputy Commissioner.
Thereafter, on 20 December 2018, the Divisional Commissioner
(Rehabilitation), Pune Division, Pune addressed a letter to the
Collector, Pune. The Petitioner filed a reply to the said application.

4.    On 12 July 2019, Respondent No. 10 expired. However, no
heirs of Respondent No. 10 were brought on record. By the
impugned order dated 2 January 2020, the Deputy Collector
(Rehabilitation) directed that the name of the Collector, through



                                  3
                                            wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


the Deputy Director of Land Records, Pune, be recorded. The
Deputy Collector directed that a report be submitted regarding
allotment of the land to the Petitioner and other persons. Being
aggrieved by the said order dated 2 January 2020, the Petitioner
filed the writ petition. Respondent No. 9 filed a reply to the
petition.

5.    On 30 March 1976, the compensation amount was accepted
by Namdev Jaiwant Bhandwalakar. A possession receipt was issued
in that regard. Respondent No. 9 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 47 of
2018 seeking declaration and injunction. The application filed by
the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure came to be allowed. Thereafter, on 26 October 2020,
the Tahsildar, Daund submitted a report in terms of the directions
contained in the impugned order dated 2 January 2020. In the
said report, the Tahsildar recorded that the Petitioner was an
independent Project Affected Person. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
filed their reply. The Petitioner filed a rejoinder.

6.    Mr. Khaire, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that
the impugned order dated 2 January 2020 was passed by the
Authority against a person who had died. Therefore, according to
him, the said order is a nullity and cannot be sustained in law. He
submits that Respondent No. 9 had no right to challenge the
allotment order dated 9 May 2016. The order dated 14 December
2017 passed by the Deputy Collector (DRO) was never challenged
by Respondent No. 9 till date. Therefore, a second application
challenging the same allotment order dated 9 May 2016 could not
have been entertained and was not maintainable. He submits that



                                    4
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


the Revision Application filed by Respondent No. 9 before the
Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune under Section 247
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was not
maintainable. According to him, Respondent No. 2 treated the
application filed by Respondent No. 9 as a Review Petition. For
deciding such Review Application, prior permission of the
Commissioner under Section 258(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 was necessary. In the case, no such
permission was obtained by Respondent No. 2. On this ground, the
impugned order is required to be set aside.

7.   Mr. Khaire submits that Respondent No. 2 has treated the
order dated 14 December 2017 as an order which could be
reviewed on the basis of the application dated 16 August 2018.
Therefore, according to him, Respondent No. 9 was required to file
an application for condonation of delay. In the absence of such an
application, the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 9 were
not maintainable. He submits that the Tahsildar conducted an
enquiry regarding the allotment of the land to the Petitioner and
other persons. In that enquiry, the Tahsildar recorded a finding
that the Petitioner was an independent Project Affected Person and
that the allotment of land to the Petitioner was made in
accordance with the provisions of law. He submits that the
Petitioner purchased the land only after it was converted from
Class-II to Class-I tenure. Therefore, the sale deed executed in
favour of the Petitioner was in accordance with law.

8.   Ms. Bane and Ms. Gavhane, learned AGPs appearing for the
State, submit that the lands belonging to Respondent No. 10 were



                                 5
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


acquired for the Veer Baji Pasalkar Project in the year 1978.
Thereafter, Respondent No. 10, namely, Mr. Kondu Pandhekar,
being a Project Affected Person, made an application for allotment
of alternate land. By order dated 9 May 2016, Respondent No. 2
allotted land bearing Gat No. 348/1, admeasuring 00 H 44 R,
situated at Dapodi, and Gat No. 51/2, old Gat No. 818,
admeasuring 00 H 81 R, situated at Village Patil Nimbalkar Vasti,
Taluka Daund, District Pune, to Respondent No. 10. The said
allotment was made on certain terms and conditions, as can be
seen from the order dated 9 May 2016.

9.    It is submitted that Respondent No. 10 applied for
conversion of the land from Class-II to Class-I. The said application
was rejected by the Commissioner by order dated 9 February 2017.
However, according to the learned AGPs, the Petitioner, in
collusion with the original allottee, suppressed the said order from
the Deputy Collector. Thereafter, the application for conversion
was allowed by Respondent No. 2 by order dated 3 April 2017 and
the land was converted from Class-II to Class-I. On the basis of the
said order, Respondent No. 10, who was the original allottee, sold
the land to the Petitioner within one year from the date of
allotment. According to the State, such sale was contrary to the
provisions of law. It is submitted that the entire transaction
appears to be sham and not genuine. Since Respondent No. 10,
being the original allottee, was allotted alternate land on Class-II
tenure, he could not have sold the said land for a period of ten
years from the date of allotment. Therefore, any transaction made
during this period could not be treated as a valid or transaction. It



                                  6
                                           wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


is pointed out that the Petitioner had obtained a Power of Attorney
from the original allottee for sale of the land. The said Power of
Attorney appears to have been registered with the Sub-Registrar,
Kedgaon. However, it was not annexed to the Sale Deed registered
in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kedgaon at Serial No. 2019 of
2017. In paragraph 5 of the Sale Deed there is a reference to the
Power of Attorney dated 15 July 2015 allegedly executed by the
original allottee in favour of the Petitioner for consideration in
respect of Gat No. 348/1. The Petitioner paid stamp duty on the
said Power of Attorney in respect of Gat No. 348/1 of Village
Dapodi, Taluka Daund, treating it as a conveyance and paid an
amount of Rs.5,05,000/- to the original allottee. According to the
State, this fact is important because on 15 July 2015 the land had
not even been allotted to Respondent No. 10. Despite this, the
original   allottee   had   executed   a   Power      of    Attorney       for
consideration in favour of the Petitioner. After the land was
allotted to Respondent No. 10, the Petitioner, acting as the Power
of Attorney holder of the original allottee, executed and registered
the Sale Deed in his own favour. According to the learned AGPs,
the manner in which the transaction was carried out shows that
the Petitioner and the original allottee were acting together and
that the authorities were misled. It is submitted that the
Commissioner had rejected the application for conversion of the
Class-II land into Class-I land by order dated 9 February 2017, on
the ground that sale of alternate land was prohibited for a period
of ten years. The Petitioner and the original allottee did not
disclose this order to the Deputy Collector and obtained the order




                                  7
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


dated 3 April 2017 converting the land from Class-II to Class-I.

10.   It is submitted that the Petitioner was not the original
allottee and, therefore, had no independent right to challenge the
cancellation of the allotment. The Petitioner claims his right only
through the original allottee and on the basis of the subsequent
Sale Deed. According to the State, the validity of the said Sale
Deed is doubtful for the reasons stated above. Therefore, the
Petitioner cannot claim any relief from this Court on the basis of
such subsequent transfer. It is submitted that Respondent No. 9
had filed a complaint on 27 July 2017 before the Collector and the
Divisional Commissioner. In the said complaint, Respondent No. 9
stated that the Additional Collector had wrongly allotted land
bearing Gat No. 348/1, admeasuring 44 R, to Respondent No. 10,
namely, Mr. Kondu Ramji Pandhekar, in excess of his actual
entitlement. After hearing both sides, Respondent No. 2 dismissed
the application filed by Respondent No. 9 by order dated 14
December 2017. Thereafter, Respondent No. 9 filed another
complaint before the Additional Commissioner, Pune, stating that
the allotment of land bearing Gat No. 348/1, admeasuring 00 H 44
R, situated at Dapodi, and Gat No. 51/2, old Gat No. 818,
admeasuring 00 H 81 R, situated at Village Patil Nimbalkar Vasti,
Taluka Daund, District Pune, in favour of Respondent No. 10 was
iland sought cancellation of the said allotment. Respondent No. 9
stated that Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and one Vitthal Pandhekar
were joint holders of the acquired land and, together, were entitled
to only 01 H 60 R of alternate land. According to Respondent No.
9, they had been allotted land in excess of 01 H 60 R. The



                                 8
                                        wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


Additional Commissioner, Pune, by letter dated 20 December
2018, directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the complaint and
communicate the decision to the complainant.

11.   Respondent No. 2 issued notices to all concerned persons,
heard the parties and considered the documents placed on record.
It was found that Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and their co-holder
were entitled to only 01 H 60 R of alternate land because the
acquired lands were held jointly and had not been held by them.
In view of the Government Resolution dated 8 August 1990 and
the Government letter dated 7 June 2008, where the shares in the
survey numbers have not been divided by following the proper
procedure and the separate names have been entered in the 7/12
extract only on the basis of an application made by the landholder,
the Project Affected Persons cannot claim separate allotment of
alternate land under the Resettlement Rules. It was found that
lands had been allotted to Respondent No. 10 and his other family
members in the years 1998-1999. Despite this, land was allotted to
them on 9 May 2016. It was found that the allotted land was sold
within one year and that the sale was made without obtaining
prior permission from the competent authority. After considering
these circumstances, the then DRO, Pune, allowed the application
filed by Respondent No. 9 and resumed the excess land allotted to
Respondent No. 10 back to the Government. According to the
learned AGPs, the order passed by the Authority is and proper. On
the basis of the facts and the record, the learned AGPs submit that
the appropriate order may be passed.




                                 9
                                        wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


12.   Mr. Lengare, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.
9, submits at the outset that the Petitioner has filed the petition
challenging the order dated 2 January 2020 passed by Respondent
No. 2. By the said order, the land bearing Gat No. 348/1,
admeasuring 44 Are, situated at Village Dapodi, Taluka Daund,
District Pune, and Gat No. 51/2, old Gat No. 818, admeasuring 81
Are, situated at Village Patil Nimbalkar Vasti, Taluka Daund,
District Pune, was resumed by the Government. Respondent No. 2
directed the Tahsildar, Daund, to conduct an enquiry regarding the
excess land allotted to Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and their co-
holders. According to the learned Advocate, the petition is not
maintainable as the Petitioner has no locus to challenge the said
order or to claim rights which belong to the Project Affected
Persons, particularly Respondent Nos. 10 and 11. It is submitted
that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 11 have acted as agents
and land dealers by obtaining Powers of Attorney from the poor
Project Affected Persons on the promise of getting alternate land
allotted to them and have thereby acted against their interests.
Respondent No. 12 obtained a Power of Attorney dated 10
December 2013 and the Petitioner identified the said document.
Similarly, the Petitioner obtained a Power of Attorney dated 15
June 2015. Thereafter, an Agreement for Sale dated 7 December
2016 was executed. The Petitioner signed the said Agreement both
as purchaser and as consent holder of the other co-holders, while
Respondent No. 12 signed as a witness. Thereafter, the Petitioner
purchased the property by Sale Deed dated 28 April 2017. In the
said Sale Deed, the Petitioner signed both as purchaser and as




                                10
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


Power of Attorney holder of the consent holders. According to
Respondent No. 9, these facts are clear from the Sale Deed dated
28 April 2017 and show that the Petitioner has not approached
this Court with clean hands.

13.   It is submitted that the predecessor-in-title of Respondent
No. 9, namely, Mr. Ramchandra Namdev Bhandwalkar, was
holding land bearing Gat No. 348/1, admeasuring 44 Are, situated
at Village Dapodi, Taluka Daund, District Pune. Though the said
land was acquired, its actual physical possession was never taken
by the authorities. According to Respondent No. 9, the land
continues to be in his possession and cultivation. At present, there
is a standing crop of popcorn and animal grass on the land. There
are eight tin sheds and an animal shed. One borewell and a
pipeline are existing on the land.

14.   It is submitted that Respondent No. 10 made an application
for allotment of alternate land. By the allotment order dated 9 May
2016, the Additional Collector allotted land bearing Gat No. 51/2,
old Gat No. 818, admeasuring 81 Are, situated at Patil Nimbalkar
Vasti, and Gat No. 348/1, admeasuring 44 Are, situated at Village
Dapodi, Taluka Daund, District Pune, to Respondent No. 10.
According to Respondent No. 9, the Tabepavati and Panchanama
relied upon in respect of the allotment are not genuine. They were
not signed by Respondent No. 10 and were prepared in the offices
of Respondent Nos. 2 and 8. It is submitted that neither
Respondent No. 10 nor the concerned officers ever visited the site
of the allotted lands.




                                 11
                                        wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


15.   Respondent No. 9 made an application before Respondent
No. 1 on 27 July 2017. It is submitted that Respondent No. 9 had
sought the necessary documents relating to the acquisition and the
revenue record from the concerned authorities. Those documents
were not available when the application was being heard.
Respondent No. 9 sought sufficient time to produce the necessary
documents. However, according to him, Respondent No. 2 did not
grant such time and rejected the application by order dated 14
December 2017 without giving a proper opportunity of hearing
and without considering the important facts relating to the
dispute.

16.   Respondent No. 9 obtained the necessary documents
concerning the acquisition and the revenue records relating to
Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and the other co-sharers. From these
documents, it was found, according to Respondent No. 9, that
Respondent No. 10 was not entitled to any separate alternate land
because Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had allotted excess land to the
co-holders. Respondent No. 9 filed a Revision Application before
the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The matter was
forwarded to Respondent No. 2 for enquiry by communication
dated 20 December 2018. It is submitted that a plain reading of
Mutation Entry No. 114 shows that Respondent Nos. 10 and 11
and one Shri Vithu Chimaji Pandhekar were joint holders of
several lands, including the acquired lands bearing Survey Nos.
6/2, 6/7, 6/10, 12/6, 14/2, 09/05, 12/3/4, 17/01, 18/1, 26/part,
19/7, 19/2, 20/5 and 21/01. The said Mutation Entry is dated 16
December 1960. Mutation Entry Nos. 4, 15 and 21 dated 17



                                12
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


December 1953 are prior to Mutation Entry No. 114. Similarly, by
Mutation Entry No. 42 dated 17 December 1953, the name of
Vithu Chimaji Pandhekar was recorded. By Mutation Entry No. 113
dated 16 December 1960, the name of Gaurubai Chimaji
Pandhekar, stated to be the heir of deceased Dagadu Chimaji
Pandhekar, was recorded. Respondent No. 9 submits that from the
Award dated 16 January 1978, referred to as 27 March 1978, and
the CC statement, it is clear that the acquired land was jointly held
by Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and Shri Vithu Chimaji Pandhekar.
Therefore, at the time of acquisition, the land formed part of their
common holding. It is submitted that Khata No. 4, admeasuring 4
Hectare 30.90 Are, Khata No. 33, admeasuring 4 Hectare 86.02
Are, and Khata No. 12, admeasuring 4 Hectare 93.03 Are, together
show substantial remaining land with the said co-holders. The
total area is stated to be 35 Acres 25 Are. According to Respondent
No. 9, this holding was more than the prescribed economic holding
of 14 Acres. Therefore, Respondent No. 10 was not entitled to a
separate alternate land and was required to claim his share, if any,
from the lands allotted to Respondent No. 11 and the other co-
holders. It is submitted that Khata Nos. 4, 12 and 33 were
separated after the acquisition pursuant to the Award dated 16
January 1978, referred to as 27 March 1978. Thus, on the date of
the Award, Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and the other co-holders
together held about 35 Acres 25 Are. According to Respondent No.
9, they were not entitled to alternate land. It is submitted that
Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and the other co-holders were holding
joint Khata No. 114 and, even after the acquisition, their




                                 13
                                          wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


remaining holding was more than the economic holding. They
were not entitled to separate alternate land.

17.   It is submitted that, on the basis of the acquisition of the
lands of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, they were entitled to only 1
Hectare 60 Are of alternate land. However, according to
Respondent No. 9, land admeasuring 7 Hectare 70 Are was
allotted to them through various orders. This fact is reflected in the
impugned order. Therefore, the excess land was rightly required to
be resumed by the Government. It is submitted that the allotted
land was illegally converted from Class-II to Class-I and was
purchased by the Petitioner by Sale Deed dated 28 April 2017.
Respondent No. 10 did not take possession of the allotted land or
personally cultivate it as required by the terms and conditions of
the allotment order. According to Respondent No. 9, Respondent
No. 10 thereby violated the conditions of allotment. It is alleged
that the Petitioner, Respondent No. 10 and Respondent No. 12
acted together and committed fraud in relation to the allotment
and sale of the land. It is pointed out that land bearing Gat No.
197/1, old Gat No. 118/part, and Gat No. 197/2, old Gat No.
118/1/B, situated at Village Kalewadi, Gat No. 65/B, Plot No. 85,
situated at Village Hinganebardi, and Gat No. 233/B situated at
Village Yavat Station, Taluka Daund, District Pune, had been
allotted to Respondent No. 10 and the other co-holders. It is
submitted that Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 had been allotted land
by earlier allotment orders. By allotment order dated 30 May
1986, Gat No. 155/B, admeasuring 2 Hectare 2 Are, and Gat No.
174/B, admeasuring 40 Are, situated at Village Devulgaonraja,



                                 14
                                        wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


Taluka Daund, District Pune, were allotted. By allotment order
dated 31 December 1987, Gat No. 118, admeasuring 81 Are, was
allotted. By order dated 2 June 1988, Gat No. 118/1/B,
admeasuring 81 Are, situated at Village Hinganebardi-Kalewadi,
was allotted. Despite these earlier allotments, Respondent No. 10
was again allotted Gat No. 348/1, admeasuring 44 Are, at Village
Dapodi and Gat No. 51/2, admeasuring 81 Are, at Village Patil
Nimbalkar Vasti. Thus, according to Respondent No. 9, Respondent
Nos. 10 and 11 and their co-holders were allotted in all 7 Hectare
70 Are, equivalent to about 19 Acres 10 Are, which was far in
excess of their entitlement.

18.   It is submitted that Respondent No. 10 did not make the
application for alternate land in the proper prescribed format.
There are corrections and additions in the application concerning
the request for Gat No. 348/1, admeasuring 44 Are, at Village
Dapodi, Taluka Daund, District Pune. According to Respondent No.
9, there was a delay of more than 35 years in seeking alternate
land. No proper explanation for such delay has been given by
Respondent No. 10. Respondent No. 9 submits that Respondent
No. 10 filed an affidavit regarding the heirs in which the date of
death of Narayan Pandhekar was shown as 1 August 1987, the
date of death of Gaurabai Chimaji Pandhekar as 23 September
1981 and the date of death of Vithu Chimaji Pandhekar as 19 April
1982. However, according to Respondent No. 9, a bare reading of
Mutation Entry No. 237 shows that Shri Narayan Hari Pandhekar
died on 28 May 1999 and that his heirs were Geetabai Narayan
Pandhekar and Bababai Raghu Vatane. Similarly, the heirs of Shri



                                15
                                        wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


Vithu Chimaji Pandhekar were recorded by Mutation Entry No.
239. Vithu C. Pandhekar died on 5 May 1998 and his heir was
Rakhamabai V. Pandhekar.

19.   It is submitted that Gaurabai Chimaji Pandhekar had died,
and her heirs were recorded through Mutation Entry No. 171
dated 24 September 1979 and Mutation Entry No. 163 dated 3
December 1986. Therefore, according to Respondent No. 9, Kondu
Ramaji Pandhekar could not be treated as the heir of Respondent
No. 11 and the other co-holders. The relevant supporting
documents, including the death certificates of Narayan Hari
Pandhekar, Vithu Chimaji Pandhekar and Gaurabai Chimaji
Pandhekar, were relied upon in support of this submission. Lastly,
it is submitted that having regard to Section 17 of the Maharashtra
Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, including the
relevant provisions contained in Schedule-A, Part-I and Schedule-
B, Part-II, as well as the Government Resolution dated 9 May 1973,
Respondent No. 10 was not entitled to any separate alternate land.
According to Respondent No. 9, the remaining holding of
Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and the other co-holders was 35 Acres
25 Are, which was more than the prescribed economic holding.
Therefore, Respondent No. 10 could not claim allotment of
alternate land.

REASONS AND FINDINGS:

20.   I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate
for the Petitioner, the learned AGPs for the State and the learned
Advocate for Respondent No. 9. The dispute is required to be




                                16
                                          wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


looked from mainly two aspects. One is whether the persons who
challenged the allotment had any right to challenge the same. The
other is whether Respondent No. 10 was entitled to the land which
was allotted to him and whether the Petitioner, after purchasing
the land, could get any better right than the original allottee.

21.   First, the question of locus raised by both sides needs to be
considered. The Petitioner says that Respondent No. 9 had no right
to challenge the allotment. Respondent No. 9, on the other side,
says that the Petitioner has no locus as he is only a subsequent
purchaser. For considering this question, the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector, (2012) 4 SCC
407, becomes relevant. In paragraph 58, the Supreme Court
observed:

      “58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President was
      the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as
      a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial
      litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A
      right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact,
      it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law.
      Thus, a person who suffers from injury can only challenge
      the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that
      may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because it may not
      result in injury to a right or protected interest of the
      complainant but juridically harm of this description is called
      damnum sine injuria.”
22.   In paragraph 59, the Supreme Court has stated the position
as follows:

      “59. The complainant has to establish that he has been
      deprived of or denied of a right and he has sustained injury



                                  17
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


      to any protected interest. In case he has no peg for a
      justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in
      a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be
      sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual.
      There must be injuria or a grievance which can be
      appreciated and not a stat pro ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a
      claim devoid of reasons.”
23.   The meaning of this is that merely because a person is not
satisfied with an allotment made in favour of somebody else, he
cannot come to Court. He has to show that because of that
allotment some right belonging to him is affected.

24.   In the case of Respondent No. 9, his case is that his
predecessor-in-title was holding Gat No. 348/1 and that even after
the acquisition, the authorities had not taken the land and he
continues to cultivate it. According to him, there are crops, tin
sheds, animal shed, borewell and pipeline on the land. Even if this
position is taken for the moment, it does not show that Respondent
No. 9 has any right in the alternate land allotted to Respondent
No. 10. The acquisition proceedings had resulted in an Award.
From the material before the Court, compensation was accepted in
1976 and a possession receipt was issued. Therefore, merely
because Respondent No. 9 says that he is still cultivating the land,
that fact cannot create a right in his favour against the alternate
land allotted to Respondent No. 10.

25.   I find that Respondent No. 9 has not shown his personal
ownership or any other right in the alternate land allotted to
Respondent No. 10. His main complaint was that excess land was
allotted and that the rehabilitation scheme was wrongly used.



                                 18
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


Such objection would not make Respondent No. 9 an aggrieved
person in the strict meaning explained by the Supreme Court in
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir. But that does not mean that the proceedings
before the Authority would become invalid. If the competent
rehabilitation authority, after seeing the record, found that the
land was wrongly or excessively allotted, and if the law gives such
power, the Authority could examine that question. Therefore, only
because Respondent No. 9 may not have a locus, the writ petition
cannot be decided in favour of the Petitioner.

26.   The position of the Petitioner is different. The Petitioner is
not a person having no connection with the property. His name
was entered in the revenue record after the Sale Deed dated 28
April 2017. The proceedings under challenge affect the property
which the Petitioner says he has purchased. Therefore, his interest
is affected by the impugned order. For this purpose, he need not be
the original Project Affected Person. He can show prejudice
because the order seeks to resume the land which is standing in his
name. Therefore, I do not accept the submission of Respondent
No. 9 that the Petitioner has no locus at all to challenge the
impugned order. But having locus does not establish that the
Petitioner has a title. Locus and the actual merits of the claim are
different matters. The right claimed by the Petitioner comes from
the original allottee, namely Respondent No. 10. Therefore, if the
original allotment was against the Act, Rules or the conditions on
which the allotment was made, the subsequent sale cannot make
the transaction legal. A registered Sale Deed cannot give the
purchaser a better right than the right which the original allottee



                                 19
                                        wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


was having to transfer.

27.   The next question is about the entitlement of Respondent
No. 10. The chart filed by the Petitioner shows that the acquired
land was standing in the names of Kondu Ramji Pandhekar,
Narayan Hari Pandhekar and Vithu Chimaji Pandhekar. The total
acquired area is shown as 07 H 50.8 R. Against this, the chart
shows the entitlement for allotment as 01 H 60 R. The same chart
refers to the land standing in the name of Kondu Ramji Pandhekar
in the 7/12 extract and shows the acquired area as 01 H 85.42 R
with entitlement of 01 H 20 R.

28.   The difference between the Award record and the later
revenue entries is important in this matter. Respondent No. 9 says
that the acquired land was a joint holding and only because
different names were appearing in the 7/12 extract, it cannot be
said that there was a proper partition giving separate entitlement
to every person as a Project Affected Person. There is some
material which supports this submission. Mutation Entry No. 114
is relied upon for showing Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and Vithu
Chimaji Pandhekar as common holders. Mutation Entries Nos. 4,
15 and 21 are earlier entries. Therefore, merely because different
names are found in some revenue entries, it cannot be said that
there was a partition and each person became entitled to alternate
land under the rehabilitation scheme.

29.   This aspect is required to be seen with reference to the
Government Resolution dated 9 May 1973, because the acquisition
in the present case is of the earlier period. Therefore, the




                                 20
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


entitlement of the concerned persons has to be seen as per the
rehabilitation policy which was applicable at that time. The said
Government Resolution is regarding the “Minimum & Maximum
Quantum of land within and outside the benefited zones of major
and medium irrigation projects, to be allotted to the project
affected persons for resettlement.” From the GR, it is seen that, as
far as possible, land for land was to be given to the persons
affected by the Government projects. But this was subject to the
family or economic holding. The GR says that efforts should be
made to give the displaced khatedars at least four acres of dry
land, or two acres of seasonally irrigated land, or one acre of
irrigated land, wherever it was possible. GR dt 9..5.1973
Therefore, only because the land of a person was acquired, it
cannot be said that such person would get a separate area of
alternate land merely because his name is appearing in the
revenue record. The area which can be given has to be seen with
reference to the land which was lost, the nature of alternate land,
the family or economic holding and the formula given in the GR.
The table in the GR gives different maximum areas. If the land lost
is below one acre, the allotment from the command area may be
up to two acres. If the land lost is more than one acre and up to
two acres, it may again be up to two acres. If the land lost is more
than two acres and up to five acres, it may be up to three acres. If
more than five acres is lost, the maximum is four acres.

30.   In this situation, the Authority could not decide the
entitlement only by looking at one revenue entry and saying that
the name of Respondent No. 10 was appearing. It was necessary to



                                 21
                                        wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


see the Award, the land acquired, the nature of the holding, the
share of each co-holder, the earlier allotments and what land was
remaining with the concerned persons. It was necessary to see
what type of land was acquired and what type of alternate land
was being given. This is because the GR gives different limits for
dry land, seasonally irrigated land and irrigated land. Therefore,
all these aspects were required to be looked into before deciding
whether the allotment made in favour of Respondent No. 10 could
continue.

31.   Respondent No. 9 has relied upon the earlier allotments
made in favour of the co-holders. However, the chart filed by
Respondent No. 9 has to be seen carefully. Some entries in the
chart are shown as “Not Allotted” and some lands are shown as
“Allotted”. In particular, the chart records allotment of 00 H 81 R
in Gat No. 197/1 to Narayan Hari Pandhekar, 00 H 81 R in Gat No.
197/2 to Narayan Hari Pandhekar, 00 H 44 R in Gat No. 348/1 to
Kondu Ramji Pandhekar and 00 H 81 R in Gat No. 818 to Kondu
Ramji Pandhekar. The other entries in the same chart are shown as
“Not allotted”. The same position is seen from the detailed last
page of the chart. It records Gat Nos. 197/1 and 197/2 as allotted
to Narayan Hari Pandhekar and Gat Nos. 348/1 and 51/2 as
allotted to Kondu Ramji Pandhekar. Therefore, the chart does show
that some earlier allotments and later allotments were made. But
from this chart alone, it cannot be said that the whole area of 07
Hectare 70 Are was allotted. Several lands relied upon by
Respondent No. 9 are themselves shown as “Not Allotted” in the
chart. Therefore, the statement that the whole 07 H 70 R was



                                22
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


allotted cannot be accepted only from this chart. Even if the figure
of 07 H 70 R is not proved from the chart, the record does show
that some allotments had been made in favour of the co-holders
and after that fresh allotments were made in favour of Respondent
No. 10 on 9 May 2016. Therefore, the Authority was justified in
examining whether Respondent No. 10 was being given land more
than what could be given to him under the rehabilitation policy
applicable at that time and under the GR dated 9 May 1973.

32.   The chart of the Petitioner creates some difficulty for his
case. The chart shows 01 H 60 R as the entitlement against the
joint acquisition. 01 H 60 R is about four acres. The GR dated 9
May 1973 provides that where more than five acres of land is lost,
land from the command area may be given up to a maximum of
four acres. It says that the grant is subject to the family or
economic holding. Therefore, the figure of 01 H 60 R cannot be
accepted or rejected only from the chart. It has to be seen whether
the original acquisition of the concerned person comes within the
category mentioned in the GR, whether Respondent No. 10 was an
individual eligible khatedar or was part of the joint holding and
what land had been allotted to the same family or affected
holding.

33.   The GR shows that the question of maximum holding is
required to be considered. It provides that the grant is subject to
the family or economic holding. Its note says that where the family
members are more than eight, additional land may be considered
for every additional three members, but the total land allotted to
one family should not be more than seven acres. The GR deals



                                 23
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


with landless project affected persons and with dry or jirayat land
from sources other than the command area. In those cases, the
grant is subject to the maximum area permitted under the
Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules,
1971.

34.     Therefore, the entitlement cannot be decided only because
one particular name is appearing in the 7/12 extract. The
Authority has first to see whether the concerned persons were
separate eligible project affected persons or whether they were co-
holders in the same holding. After this, the area which could be
granted under the GR has to be calculated. Respondent No. 9 says
that about 07 H 70 R was allotted. This figure is much more than
the maximum area mentioned in the GR for a single affected
family in the circumstances covered by the table. Therefore, this
figure cannot be accepted without seeing the status of each person
and the allotment orders. At the same time, the Court cannot
presume that the entire 07 H 70 R was allotted when the chart
shows several entries as “Not Allotted”. It is required to be noticed
that the GR says that the grant of such land would be subject to
the “equated compensatory value received by the allottee project
affected persons.” Therefore, the matter is not only about how
much land was acquired. The nature and value of the alternate
land and the conditions under which the grant was made are
important. The Authority therefore has to see the original
allotment orders and the connected record. It cannot decide the
whole issue only on the basis of later revenue entries.




                                 24
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


35.   I now come to the subsequent sale. The Petitioner says that
he purchased the land only after it was converted from Class-II to
Class-I and therefore the Sale Deed is legal. This submission
cannot be accepted in such a manner. The conversion order is
dated 3 April 2017 and the Sale Deed is dated 28 April 2017.
However, the State points out that an earlier application for
conversion had been rejected by the Commissioner on 9 February
2017. It is alleged that this rejection order was not brought to the
notice of the Deputy Collector. Therefore, the dates and the
sequence of these events are important. The later conversion order
cannot wipe out the effect of the earlier proceedings without
seeing the complete record.

36.   The State and Respondent No. 9 rely upon the recital in the
Sale Deed that the Petitioner had obtained a Power of Attorney
from the original allottee for consideration under an earlier
document dated 15 July 2015. The allotment in favour of
Respondent No. 10 was made only on 9 May 2016. Therefore, on
15 July 2015, the land had not yet been allotted to Respondent
No. 10. After that, an Agreement for Sale was executed on 7
December 2016 and the Sale Deed was registered on 28 April
2017. Thus, the whole sequence of these events was within a close
period and it cannot be ignored while considering the case of the
Petitioner.

37.   I would not record any finding of fraud only on the basis of
this sequence. Fraud is a allegation and the Power of Attorney
document is not before the Court in the material supplied. But this
sequence creates some difficulty in accepting the Petitioner's case



                                 25
                                           wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


that he was a bona fide purchaser who came into the matter only
after the allotment was made and everything had become
unquestionable. This circumstance will have to be considered
while examining whether the transaction was legal.

38.   The Petitioner relies upon the enquiry made by the Tahsildar,
in which the Petitioner is stated to have been described as Project
Affected Person. The entitlement of Respondent No. 10 under the
rehabilitation scheme is one matter. Whether the Petitioner, who
claims through a sale from Respondent No. 10, got right is another
matter. A later report of the Tahsildar cannot make a transfer legal
if the original allottee did not have the right to transfer the land or
if the conditions of allotment were not followed.

39.   I find some substance in the submission of the State that the
sale took place within one year from the allotment. The State
submits that the allotment contained conditions restricting transfer
without permission. Therefore, the legality of the transfer cannot
be decided only on the ground that the land was later treated as
Class-I land. The Authority has to see the original allotment order,
the conditions imposed at the time of grant, the permission, if any,
obtained for transfer and the legal position applicable to such
Government allotted land at the relevant time. The fact that the
sale took place soon after the allotment is relevant. The conversion
order is dated 3 April 2017 and the Sale Deed is dated 28 April
2017. Thus, even after the conversion, the transfer took place
within a very short time. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot say that
only because the Sale Deed is registered, the transaction cannot be
looked into further. The source of the right of the original allottee



                                  26
                                          wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


and the conditions attached to the grant are still relevant.

40.   The Petitioner has raised objection regarding the death of
Respondent No. 10. It is not disputed that Respondent No. 10 died
on 12 July 2019 and the impugned order was passed on 2 January
2020. It is not disputed that his legal heirs were not brought on
record before the impugned order was passed. In my view, this fact
is important. The proceeding was concerning continuation of the
allotment made in favour of Respondent No. 10 and resumption of
the land allotted to him. His right was involved. Once the
Authority was proposing to pass an order against the allottee after
his death, the persons who were representing his estate were
required to be identified and given proper opportunity of hearing
before passing an order affecting the property and the rights
arising from the allotment.

41.   The fact that the Petitioner claims through Respondent No.
10 does not remove this defect. The Petitioner can be heard
because his own claimed rights are affected. But the rights of the
deceased allottee and the effect of his allotment could not be
decided without bringing his legal representatives before the
Authority. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from a basic
defect.

42.   The submission of the Petitioner regarding the order dated
14 December 2017 requires consideration. It is submitted that
Respondent No. 9 had challenged the allotment and his application
was dismissed on 14 December 2017. Thereafter, Respondent No.
9 filed another application dated 16 August 2018. According to the




                                 27
                                            wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


Petitioner, the later proceeding was in the nature of review of the
earlier order and therefore the legal requirements for review,
including the requirement of permission, were required to be
followed.

43.   I am not inclined to hold that only because a party calls a
proceeding “Revision”, “Complaint” or “Review”, the jurisdiction of
the Authority gets decided by that name. What is important is to
see what was sought to be reopened and under which provision
the Authority acted. The record shows that Respondent No. 9 first
made a complaint on 27 July 2017. That complaint was dismissed
on 14 December 2017. Thereafter, on 16 August 2018, another
proceeding was filed and on 20 December 2018 the Additional
Commissioner directed Respondent No. 2 to deal with the
complaint. The Authority issued notices, heard the parties and
examined the revenue records and earlier allotments. Therefore,
only from these dates, it cannot be said that the later proceeding
was necessarily a review application. But if the Authority was in
substance trying to review and reverse its own order dated 14
December 2017, then the source of power for doing so had to be
clearly shown. The impugned order does not satisfactorily show
how the earlier order was reopened and under which particular
statutory or administrative power. This is a reason why the matter
requires fresh decision according to law.

44.   The objection regarding delay and condonation cannot
decide the whole matter. If the later proceeding was a revision or
any other proceeding for which a particular period of limitation
applied, the question of limitation had to be considered according



                                 28
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


to the provision governing that proceeding. But before deciding
limitation, the Authority first had to decide what was the nature of
the later proceeding. Without deciding this, it could not proceed
on the assumption that the earlier order was open for
reconsideration.

45.   The allegation made by Respondent No. 9 regarding the
affidavit of legal heirs raises a factual issue which requires proper
checking. It is submitted that the dates of death mentioned in the
affidavit did not tally with the dates appearing from the later
Mutation Entries concerning Narayan Hari Pandhekar, Vithu
Chimaji Pandhekar and Gaurabai Chimaji Pandhekar. If such
difference is found from the original revenue records and death
certificates, the same would require an explanation. But this issue
cannot be decided only on the oral submissions. The concerned
persons and the original documents will have to be examined by
the competent Authority.

46.   There is one more reason why the entire case of Respondent
No. 9 cannot be accepted in the manner in which it has been
placed. Respondent No. 9 says that the co-holders were allotted
about 07 Hectare 70 Are. But his own chart shows several entries
as “Not Allotted” and only certain entries as “Allotted”. Therefore,
the Court cannot accept the figure of 07 Hectare 70 Are merely
because such figure is stated, without matching it with the
allotment orders. The Authority will have to calculate the
allotment from the original documents and compare it with the
extent permissible under the GR dated 9 May 1973. At the same
time, the Petitioner cannot take benefit of this discrepancy and say



                                 29
                                          wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


that the allotment of Gat No. 348/1 and Gat No. 51/2 was legal.
The documents show that these lands were allotted to Kondu
Ramji Pandhekar on 9 May 2016. The same chart records 00 H 44
R in Gat No. 348/1 and 00 H 81 R in Gat No. 51/2 in his name.
Therefore, whether these allotments were permissible, after
considering the original acquisition, earlier allotments, the nature
of the joint holding and the limits laid down in the GR, remains a
question which has to be decided by the competent Authority.

47.   On considering the Government Resolution dated 9 May
1973 as a whole, a balanced position comes out. The rehabilitation
policy was that, as far as possible, land for land should be given.
But the grant was subject to the family or economic holding and to
the maximum area mentioned in the Government Resolution. The
GR gives a formula depending upon the area of land lost.
Therefore, the entitlement of Respondent No. 10 could not be
decided merely by seeing his name in one revenue entry. The State
was entitled to examine whether the allotment was within the
permissible area and whether the conditions of the rehabilitation
scheme were followed. Respondent No. 9 could not decide the
rights of the parties merely by filing a complaint. The Petitioner, on
the other hand, had sufficient interest to challenge an order which
affected the property standing in his name. But the Petitioner has
not established that the later Sale Deed proves a lawful title.

48.   I, therefore, find that the impugned order dated 2 January
2020 cannot continu. The main reason is that it was passed after
the death of Respondent No. 10 without bringing his legal
representatives on record, though the rights arising from his



                                  30
                                          wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


allotment were under consideration. The order does not clearly
show the basis on which the earlier order dated 14 December 2017
was reopened. Further, the exact extent of the alleged excess
allotment has not been established with clarity from the charts. At
the same time, since there are questions regarding the original
entitlement under the GR dated 9 May 1973 and regarding the
subsequent transaction, the Petitioner cannot be given a
declaration that the Sale Deed dated 28 April 2017 is valid.

49.   In my view, therefore, the proper course is to set aside the
order dated 2 January 2020 and send the matter back to the
competent Authority for fresh decision. The Authority shall first
examine the legal position relating to the original acquisition and
the nature of the holding of Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and their
co-holders. It shall then determine, from the Award, revenue
records and earlier allotment orders, the exact entitlement under
the Government Resolution dated 9 May 1973. While doing so, it
shall apply the formula contained in the GR with reference to the
area of land lost and the nature of alternate land available. It shall
find out the extent of land allotted and shall not proceed on the
figure of 07 Hectare 70 Are. The Authority shall examine the
conditions of the allotment order dated 9 May 2016 and the legal
effect of the conversion order dated 3 April 2017. The Sale Deed
dated 28 April 2017 shall be considered in the light of the rights
which the original allottee had in the allotted land.

50.   Before taking the fresh decision, the legal representatives of
deceased Respondent No. 10, the Petitioner, Respondent No. 9 and
every other person whose rights may be affected shall be given



                                  31
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


proper notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The
Authority shall consider the earlier order dated 14 December 2017
and give a finding about the source of its jurisdiction to reopen or
reconsider that order. The question of delay and limitation shall be
decided according to the nature of the proceeding which the
Authority finds applicable. The Authority shall examine whether
the allotments made, individually or jointly, fall within the limits
prescribed by the GR dated 9 May 1973.

51.   The Supreme Court has cautioned in paragraph 60 of Ravi
Yashwant Bhoir that:

      “60. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person
      cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public
      interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be
      permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who
      wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he
      has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be
      violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial
      right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a
      party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party.”
52.   Applying this principle, Respondent No. 9 cannot claim any
right merely because he has objected to the allotment. At the same
time, if the competent rehabilitation Authority has power to
examine an illegal or excessive allotment under the applicable
rehabilitation policy and the Government Resolution, such power
cannot be taken away merely because Respondent No. 9 may not
have a right in the allotted land. Therefore, the decision has to be
taken by the competent Authority after examining the record, the
limits and conditions contained in the GR and after giving hearing




                                 32
                                         wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


to every person whose rights are affected.

53.   For all these reasons, I am of the view that the Petitioner
succeeds in challenging the impugned order dated 2 January 2020.
However, the Petitioner does not succeed on the ground that the
allotment and the subsequent Sale Deed have been proved to be
valid. The Petitioner succeeds because the adverse order
concerning the allotment of deceased Respondent No. 10 was
passed without bringing his legal representatives on record. There
is no clear determination regarding the entitlement under the
Government Resolution dated 9 May 1973, the earlier allotments,
the nature of the joint holding and the jurisdictional and factual
questions which formed the basis of the impugned order.

54.   Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2 January 2020 is
quashed and set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the
competent Authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law
and in the light of the findings recorded above. The fresh
proceedings shall be decided after giving proper notice and
effective opportunity of hearing to all concerned persons. The
competent Authority shall determine the entitlement of the
concerned Project Affected Persons by applying the Government
Resolution dated 9 May 1973, including the maximum extent
provided therein, after considering the area acquired, the nature of
land, the family or economic holding and the earlier allotments.
Nothing stated in this judgment shall be treated as giving validity
to the Sale Deed dated 28 April 2017 or as deciding the Petitioner's
title. Those questions shall be decided by the competent Authority
on the basis of the original record and the applicable provisions



                                33
                                          wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


governing the allotment and transfer of the land.

55.   In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon overall
assessment of the material record, the following order is passed:

      i)     The Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause
      (b);

      ii)    The impugned order dated 2 January 2020 passed by
      Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside;

      iii)   The proceedings are remanded to Respondent No.2 for
      taking a fresh decision in accordance with law, after giving
      proper notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
      legal heirs of deceased Respondent No.10, the Petitioner,
      Respondent No.9 and all other persons whose rights are
      likely to be affected.

      iv)    While deciding the matter afresh, Respondent No.2
      shall examine, inter alia, the joint holding and the
      entitlement of Respondent Nos.10, 11 and the other co-
      holders under the Government Resolution dated 9 May
      1973, the earlier allotments, the allotment order dated 9
      May 2016, the conversion order dated 3 April 2017, and the
      subsequent Sale Deed dated 28 April 2017, in the light of the
      material available on record;

      v)     Respondent No.2 shall determine, in accordance with
      law, the jurisdiction and maintainability of the proceedings
      initiated on the basis of the application/complaint of
      Respondent No.9, including the effect, if any, of the earlier




                                  34
                                    wp309-2020 with wpst27553-2025-J.doc


order dated 14 December 2017;

vi)    It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the validity of the Sale Deed dated 28 April 2017
or on the title of the Petitioner to Gat No.348/1, and all such
questions are kept open for consideration by the competent
authority in accordance with law;

vii)   The fresh decision shall be taken after considering the
material submissions and documents of all concerned
parties, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

viii) Until the fresh decision is taken, the parties shall
maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession
of the subject lands, subject to any order passed by a
competent Court or authority;

ix)    The Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms. No order as to costs.

                                        (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                           35