State Mandating Project Affected Persons To Construct House On Alternate Land Within A Year Of Allotment "Draconian": Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that project affected persons are allotted alternate land on humanitarian grounds and the State cannot impose any condition on the allotment that may lead to loss of the land. The court said that such a condition would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

“The object and purpose in rehabilitating a person like the Petitioner by allotting him the alternate land in lieu of his land being acquired for a public project is purely on special and humanitarian considerations and not merely to compensate him as in a normal case of land acquisition…This would certainly not contemplate imposing of a condition which would take away the benefits of such rehabilitation, and in fact would subject such person to a coercive taking away of the alternate land allotted to him”, the court held.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain set aside an order cancelling the allotment of alternate land to a 78-year-old project affected person on the ground that he did not fulfil the condition of constructing a house on the land within a year of the allotment.

“Moreover, having any such condition and revoking the allotment on such condition would not only be draconian but also arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and contrary to the object of the Resettlement Act. Thus, in our considered opinion, imposing a condition to foist on the Petitioner to undertake construction within one year of the allotment, would be on the face of it arbitrary and unreasonable condition”, the court stated.

Interestingly, through the impugned order, the Additional Collector (Rehabilitation), Solapur sought to implement this condition 40 years after the initial allotment on the basis of a 2015 complaint by another resident of the same village. The court termed this a colourable exercise of power and said that this destroyed the purpose of resettlement.

“such a condition could not have been implemented after 40 years of allotment of the land and that too on a complaint of Respondent No.5, who in no manner was concerned with the allotment of the land to the Petitioner. Acting on such complaint itself, was a colourable exercise of power, discriminatory, unjust and arbitrary action on the part of the Respondent No.4 (Additional Collector)”, the court held.

The petitioner Manik Deokar's land and house in village Sugaon, District Solapur, was acquired for the Ujjani Dam Project. He was entitled to an alternate land area of 8,000 sq. ft. under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. He was allotted a plot measuring 2,500 sq. ft., in 1976, but received possession of the plot only in 1989, 13 years later. The allotment was subject to certain conditions, including the construction of a house within a year. The petitioner was subsequently allotted another plot measuring 4000 sq. ft. in 1996. However, the remaining 1500 sq. ft. is still pending allotment.

One Dattatray Deokar, resident of the same village, lodged a complaint in 2015, alleging that the petitioner had not built a house on the 2500 sq. ft. plot. Thus, the Additional Collector cancelled the allotment of that plot in November 2015. The matter was remanded back to the Additional Collector in a review application filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. In December 2019, the Additional Collector again cancelled the allotment of the 2500 sq. ft. plot to the petitioner. Thus, he filed the present writ petition.

Advocate Sandeep M Pathak for the petitioner emphasized the inadequacy of the 2500 sq. ft. plot to accommodate the petitioner’s family of over 15 members, leading them to build a house on the 4000 sq. ft. plot allotted in 1996. He also highlighted the lack of basic amenities in the plot making construction unfeasible.

Advocate Sandeep S Salunkhe for Dattatray Deokar argued that the petitioner had violated the conditions of the allotment, justifying the subsequent cancellation. AGP Sachin H Kankal for the State supported Salunkhe’s submission.

The court opined that cancelling the allotment of the plot measuring 2500 sq. ft. due to the petitioner's failure to construct a house within one year was arbitrary and without jurisdiction, considering the lack of any provision empowering the state to do so.

The court also questioned the intention of Dattatray Deokar in making the complaint that as he is not connected to the land or the petitioner. “The intention of Respondent No.5 to make such complaint does not appear to be bonafide or in any public cause. As to how the State and its officers could act upon and succumb to Respondent No.5’s complaint and that too after almost 4 decades is a mystery”, said the court.

The court noted that the petitioner was entitled to 8000 sq. ft. of land but was allocated two plots totalling 6500 sq. ft. It criticized the state for failing to justify the withholding of the remaining 1500 sq. ft. of land, deeming it unfair and unreasonable.

The court directed the state to allot the petitioner the remaining 1500 sq. ft. within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment. The court also set aside the order cancelling the allotment of the 2500 sq. ft. plot.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 4022 of 2021

Case Title – Manik Chandru Deokar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.