5.wp.3771-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3771 OF 2009 Shri Baban Subhana Deshmukh. ..Petitioner. Versus The Collector, Pune and 5 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.G.M. Savagave, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for the Respondent - State. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner by this Petition makes a grievance against the order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Pune rejecting application of the petitioner dated 5.11.2007 for allotment of alternative land. 3. The relevant facts are that - the land from the holdings of the petitioner was acquired for an irrigation project leaving land admeasuring 5 Hectare 98.1 Are with the petitioner. 5.wp.3771-09 2 Total compensation to which the petitioner was held entitled was Rs.4,24,998/-. Out of that amount of compensation, 65% of the amount was deducted for allotment of alternative land to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner on 3.6.2007, made an application for allotment of the alternative land giving full details of the land acquired from his holdings for the project, the land that remains with him, also giving details of the amount that was deducted from the amount of compensation payable to him, and requested for allotment of alternative land. The petitioner also submitted documents to show that most of the land that remains with him after acquisition of his land is incapable of being cultivated. 5. The application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative land was rejected by communication dated 21.1.2008. Only one reason is given in the communication that after acquisition of the land of the petitioner, land admeasuring 5 Hectare 9 Are is still with the petitioner and, therefore, he is not entitled to allotment of alternative land. But, the District Rehabilitation Officer who has made the order has 5.wp.3771-09 3 not at all considered the fact that amount from the amount of compensation that was payable to the petitioner was deducted for allotment of alternative land to the petitioner and the case of the petitioner that most of the land that remains with him is incapable of being cultivated. 6. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government. In that affidavit, there is no explanation given as to why when the petitioner was not entitled to alternative land, the amount from the amount of compensation was deducted. In the affidavit, it is also tried to be contended that claim of the petitioner that most of the land that remained with the petitioner is incapable of being cultivated is not correct. In our opinion, that cannot be considered in this Petition because that was the matter to be considered by the Rehabilitation Officer and failure of the Rehabilitation Officer to consider that aspect of the matter renders his order invalid. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice : :: O R D E R :: [i] Order dated 21.1.2008 is set aside; 5.wp.3771-09 4 [ii] Application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative land is remitted back to the District Rehabilitation Officer who is directed to make a fresh order after holding de novo enquiry on the application of the petitioner and after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is also directed that the District Rehabilitation Officer shall dispose of the application of the petitioner by a reasoned order and in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. [iii] The District Rehabilitation Officer shall make his final order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four months from the date on which writ of this order is served on the District Rehabilitation Officer. [iv] Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)