BALASAHEB PANDITRAO SAKALKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTEHRS

2026:BHC-AUG:34115-DB



                                                            WP.9092.2019.odt


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO.9092 OF 2019

                                                       District : Jalna
            Balasaheb S/o Panditrao Sakalkar,
            Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture,
            R/o. Village Mapegaon (Bk),
            Tq. Partur, District Jalna                 ..Petitioner

                        VERSUS

            1]   The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through its Secretary,
                 Water Resources Department,
                 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

            2]   The Divisional Commissioner/
                 Chief Controlling Authority,
                 Aurangabad Division,
                 Divisional Commissioner’s Office,
                 Aurangabad.

            3]   The Chief Engineer and
                  Chief Administrator,
                 Command Area Development Authority,
                 Water Resources, CADA Office,
                  Auranagabad.

            4]   The Assistant Chief Engineer
                 (Water Resources),
                 Water Resources Department,
                 Aurangabad.

            5]   Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                 Krishna Valley Development
                 Corporation, Jalna.

            6]   The Executive Engineer,
                 Lower Dudhana Project,
                 Irrigation Department, Jalna.
                                       2                           WP.9092.2019




7]    The Collector, Jalna,
      Tq. And Dist. Jalna.

8]    The Tahsildar, Partur,
      Tq. and Dist. Jalna                                ..Respondents

                                 ----
Mr.Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for petitioner
Ms.J.P.Reddy, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2, 5, 7 and 8
                                 ----

                             CORAM :       KISHORE C. SANT &
                                           AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
                 RESERVED ON :             AUGUST 03, 2026
              PRONOUNCED ON :              AUGUST 06, 2026

JUDGMENT (Per Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.) :-

1.          Inaction on the part of the Respondent nos. 2, 7 and 8 to

allot a residential plot to the Petitioner under the rehabilitation

scheme    following   the      Maharashtra    Project   Affected   Persons

Rehabilitation Act 1999 (‘the Act’ for brevity), has brought the

Petitioner before us vide present Writ Petition.

2.          Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Pleadings are

completed by the Parties. We heard the Writ Petition for final disposal

by consent of the Parties.

3.          Facts in brief:

3.1         Petitioner owned a residential plot bearing Village

Property No.46/2 at Village Mapegaon (Budruk), Taluka Partur,

District Jalna. The mutation record stands exclusively in his name.
                                      3                            WP.9092.2019



There is no dispute over independent ownership of the Petitioner

over the said plot.

3.2         On 31-12-2001, the respondent authorities initiated land

acquisition process at village Mapegaon (Bk.) for the purpose of

Lower Dudhana Project. Accordingly, notification u/s.4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1864, was issued. In the due course of time, lands at

Mapegaon     village   including   Petitioner’s   plot    were    acquired.

Compensation against land acquisition was also paid to the land

losers.

3.3         For the purpose of rehabilitation of the project affected

persons, the State Government acquired about 16 hectors land at

Partur Shivar. The said land fell deficit to accommodate all the

beneficiaries. A number of families from the Petitioner’s village

remained non benefited of the rehabilitation. The Petitioner too could

not get any benefit of the Act.

3.4         Village    Panchayat   Mapegaon       (Bk.)   on     01-05-2017

unanimously resolved to file a representation to the Government

authorities for rehabilitation of the project affected persons. Such

representation was filed with various authorities. It was learnt that

the representation of the Petitioner and others were even forwarded

to the Respondent no. 3 authorities. However, no heed is paid to the

same.
                                          4                          WP.9092.2019



3.5         Hence this petition is filed by the Petitioner with a prayer

for directions to the Respondent nos. 2, 7 and 8 to expedite

rehabilitation for the project affected persons from Mapegaon (Bk.),

Taluka Partur, District Jalna. A prayer is also made to allot a suitable

plot to the Petitioner.

3.6         The    Writ   Petition   is       opposed   by   the   respondent

authorities. A reply affidavit is also filed under the seal and signature

of Dr.Pratibha Gore-Karanjkar, the then Tahsildar, Partur, District

Jalna.

3.7         At paragraph No.5 of the reply affidavit, the deponent

candidly accepted that 161 land losers and 91 landless labours were

allotted 16 hectors of land. It is further accepted that 22 plots for

project affected persons and 07 plots for landless labours remained

to be allotted.

3.8         So far as Petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that (i)

Petitioner’s plot was an open plot, and hence he is not entitled for

plot allotment; (ii) property of Petitioner’s father was also acquired

for which compensation is already paid, hence no allotment could be

made to the Petitioner; and (iii) since the Talathi reported that the

Petitioner was unmarried and residing with his father in a joint

family, he is not entitled for any allotment.
                                        5                        WP.9092.2019



3.9         With above defense, the respondent authorities sought to

justify declination to allot any plot to the Petitioner.

4.          Submissions:-

4.1         Mr. Ghatge, learned advocate for the Petitioner would

submit that the authorities are not at all justified for denying

allotment of plot to him on any count.

4.2         He would submit that his independent ownership is not

disputed by anybody. Compensation for land acquisition cannot be a

ground for denial of plot for rehabilitation.

4.3         That, the report of Talathi is absolutely perverse to the

record. The record clearly show that that Petitioner’s residential

house was situated over the plot. At the relevant time, the Petitioner

was unmarried, but later he got married. Anyhow, this cannot be a

ground to deny him the benefit of rehabilitation. Hence, the Writ

Petition be allowed with directions to the authorities to allot the

Petitioner a plot for rehabilitation.


4.4         Mrs.   Reddy,    learned    Assistant   Government    Pleader

vehemently opposes the Writ Petition. She would rely upon the reply

affidavit filed by the concerned Tahsildar.


4.5         Mrs. Reddy would take us to the Part IV of Schedule

appended to the Act r/w Section 13(3) (c) and 14 (3) and (4) and 16
                                     6                         WP.9092.2019



(1) of the Act. She would submit that in view of the Part IV of the

Schedule, the Petitioner is not entitled for any allotment.


4.6         It is further argued by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader that, it was an undisputed fact that the Petitioner was

unmarried person residing with his father. That, for this reason only

he would not be entitled for any allotment.


4.7         Learned Assistant Government Pleader concludes her

arguments with a submission that as per the Talathi report,

Petitioner’s property was an open plot. Hence he won’t be entitled

for allotment of plot for rehabilitation. With such arguments       Mrs.

Reddy prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5.          Discussion and consideration:-

5.1         We have heard the parties at length. With their able

assistance, we have perused the record. On the basis of the

pleadings, record and verbal submissions, we now deal with the

matter.


5.2         The petitioner’s ownership on plot no.46/2, village

Mapegaon (Bk.), Taluka Partur, District Jalna is not disputed, nor it is

disputed that the said property is acquired for the Lower Dudhana

Project. The Form-8 maintained by the Village Panchayat, Mapegaon
                                      7                          WP.9092.2019



(Bk.) is before us. It shows Petitioner’s name as owner and possessor

of the said plot.

5.3         A notice dated 31-12-2001 issued by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer, Krishna Valley u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act

to the Petitioner is also on record. It is in respect of petitioner’s

aforesaid land.

5.4         Final Award ‘E’ statement also shows that compensation

is paid to the Petitioner against acquisition of his aforesaid plot.

5.5         Thus, there is no dispute that the Petitioner is a project

affected person within the meaning of the Act. The benefit is denied

only on two counts. As far as objection that the Petitioner was

unmarried at the relevant time and was allegedly residing with his

father, we find this reason to deny the benefit of the Act to the

Petitioner to be absolutely irrational.

5.6         Learned Assistant Government Pleader could not point

out any provision in the Act or any Government policy which debars

an unmarried person from getting benefit of plot allotment for

rehabilitation purpose. What is required, that a person’s independent

property stands acquired for some project covered by the Act.

Admittedly, the Lower Dudhana Project, is a project within the

meaning of the Act.
                                           8                               WP.9092.2019



5.7           The Petitioner is covered by the definition of ‘affected

person’ within the meaning of Section 2 (2) (a) of the Act which

reads thus:

              Section 2 (Definitions)
               (2) “affected persons” means—
              (a) an occupant whose land in the affected zone (including land in the
              gaothan) is acquired under section 14 for the purposes of a project ;


5.8           Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner is covered by the

definition of ‘affected person’ as enumerated in the Act. This is

because, the definition expressly covers the land falling in Gaothan

too. Petitioner’s land undisputedly falls within Gaothan as could be

seen from the documents, particularly the Form-8 annexed to the

Petition.   Learned      Assistant      Government         Pleader     could      not

demonstrate that there is any prohibition on open plot for

rehabilitation allotment. Hence we are of the considered opinion that

the first objection raised by the respondent does not stand on merit.


5.9           So far as another objection as regards payment of

compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner

was paid compensation. However, this cannot be a ground for

denying rehabilitation and            allotment of plot to a land loser.

Allotment of plot for rehabilitation cannot be in lieu of compensation,

or vice-a-versa. Rehabilitation is a complete separate scheme under
                                        9                          WP.9092.2019



the Act, which is governed by the parameters laid down in the

Statute. One who is covered by those parameters, shall be entitled

for the benefit of allotment. Hence, we find that the second objection

is misconceived.


5.10          The   last    objection   raised     by    learned   Assistant

Government Pleader is reference to the Part IV of Schedule appended

to the Act. The said part only shows          quantum/area that can be

allotted to a beneficiary in proportion to the family size. Reference to

the said provision is of no avail to the learned Assistant Government

Pleader.   Upon     our    cautious   query   to   the   learned   Assistant

Government Pleader as to how the said provision bars the Petitioner,

we could not get any satisfactory, nor even remotely convincing

explanation. Again, it was sought to impress that Petitioner             was

residing with this father, and that he won’t be entitled for allotment

of plot.


5.11          Thus, we find that there is no justifiable reason with the

respondent authorities to deny allotment of a suitable plot to the

Petitioner for rehabilitation as a project affected person. The

Petitioner is entitled for such allotment as per the policy and the

provisions.
                                      10                           WP.9092.2019



5.12       Hence, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition

deserves to be allowed. Hence we pass following order:-

                               ORDER

  I.     Writ Petition stands allowed;


  II.    The Respondent nos. 2, 7 and 8 shall expedite the process
         of rehabilitation of the Lower Dudhana project affected
         persons from Mapegaon (BK.), Taluka Partur, district Jalna,
         within a period of 12 months from today, if not already
         done;


  III.   Within Six months from today, the Respondent nos. 2, 7
         and 8 shall allot a suitable plot to the Petitioner for his
         rehabilitation out of the land acquired for rehabilitation of
         Lower Dudhana Project affected persons;


  IV.    The     aforesaid   directions    are   subject   to   Petitioner’s
         compliance if any, as per the scheme and provisions of law.


  V.     Rule made absolute in above terms.




[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]                    [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

                                 ………..
KBP