Citation : Writ Petition No. 4022 of 2021
Coram : Justice G. S. Kulkarni, Justice Jitendra Jain
Order date : 30th October, 2023
Introduction :
The petitioner has approached the appellate high court of Bombay under Article 226 of the constitution to quash the order which cancelled the appropriate land which is ought to be allotted to him.
Facts:
The petitioner, coming from a family of 15, under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, was entitled to 8000 sq,ft of land after being displaced because of the Ujjani Dam Project. The subject matter, that is the land is divided into 3 individual lands measuring 2500 sq. Ft, 4000 sq. ft and the last 1500sq.ft.
In 1976, the petitioner was allotted the first plot but possession was handed over in the year 1989. There was a condition imposed that the petitioner must construct a house within a period of one year. In the year 1996, the petitioner was allotted the second plot measuring 4000 sq.ft. The pending 1500sq.ft still remains to be allotted.
One of the respondents filed a complaint on November 2015 claiming that the petitioner has not constructed a house in the first plot within a year and the subsequent allotment should be cancelled. The appropriate authority upon hearing the complaint had cancelled the allotment who are respondents 4 to the case.
The petitioner filed for a review of the order on 2019 in front of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and directed the respondent to make an inquiry and the previous order was upheld. The petitioner had appealed challenging the 2019 order in the appellate court of Bombay.
The contentions of the petitioner were that, firstly, the condition imposed on the property is arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction under the Act. Secondly, since the petitioner’s family consisted of more than 15 persons, a house under 2500sq.ft would not be sufficient and lacked civic amenities to sustain life. Thirdly, it was contended that the petitioner had only been allotted 6500 sq.ft of land out of the 8000sq.ft and was deprived of 1500sq.ft of land.
The respondents argued that the cancellation of the allotment of land was justified as it violated the conditions imposed and due to the non-issuance of notice for not constructing a house on the land, the state was justified to not allot the remaining land.
Courts Analysis and Judgement:
The court analysed the object of the condition to revoke the land and stated that the primary objective was to provide humanitarian assistance to the people under the project. The court stated that the condition does not fulfill the test of reasonability under Article 14 of the constitution. The court also stated that it is merely not reasonable to construct a house in 1 year and it is a subjective aspect. In furtherance, the court also stated that the Collector was out of jurisdiction and such revocation is draconian, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the Resettlement Act.
The postponement of allotting the rest 1500sq.ft of land without a just reason was said to be unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner, on the basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation can seek allotment of the balance land of 1500sq.ft.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma
