WP 1464/2000 1 spb/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1464 OF 2000 Shri Pratpagir Songir Gosavi & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents --- Mr. S.B. Deshmukh i./by Mr.R.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mrs. S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 17th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mrs. Bhende, the learned AGP for the Respondents. The petitioners challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. under which the petitioners’ proposal for acceptance of alternative land is rejected. 2 The following are the admitted facts of this case : The petitioners were owners of the lands in gut nos. 43, 175(2) and 124 (2) situate at village Apati, Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune, admeasuring about 2H.17R, 2H.80R and 1H.80R respectively. The respondents WP 1464/2000 2 acquired the area of about 1H.60R from gut no.43; 1H.59R from gut no. 175(2) and 80R from gut no. 124/2 for resettlement of the persons affected by Chas- Kaman Project. There is no dispute that the possession of the acquired lands is already taken by the respondents and out of the 3 gut numbers, the land admeasuring 1H.20R from gut no. 175(2) is allotted to one Mahadeo Gujar and Raghunath Polekar. The petitioners offered the land admeasuring about 4H from gut no. 176 as an alternative land in lieu of the land already acquired. There is no dispute that the respondents authority have taken possession of this alternative land also and out of this land, 80R land is allotted to Sindhu Kangude and another 80R is allotted to Dyanoba Botage. Thus the respondents acquisition authority have acquired possession of 7H.99R from the petitioners though they were entitled to acquire only 3H.99R.. 3 As stated above, admittedly an area of 1H.20R from gut no. 175(2) is allotted to the project affected persons, namely, Mahadeo Gujar and Raghunath Polekar and an area of 1H.60R from gut no. 176 is allotted to one Sindhu Kangude and Dnyanoba Botage. Thus the respondents authority in total have allotted an area of 2H.80R to the project affected persons. If this area is considered, the respondents are entitled and the petitioners are liable to give only 1H.19 gunthas. This position is not disputed. However, as on today, the respondents authority are in possession of balance area of 5H.19R. WP 1464/2000 3 4 Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, makes a statement that since the area of 1H.20R from gut no. 175/2 is already allotted to the project affected persons, namely, Gujar and Polekar, he has no objection for the same. However, he states that the balance area of 1H.19R may be taken from gut no.176. Mrs. Bhende,learned AGP for the respondents on the contrary submits that the matter may be remanded to the Divisional Commissioner to take appropriate decision in this regard. 5 Exh.`C’ at page 25 is a communication dated 2nd July, 1992 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (23), Pune to the Petitioners. Under this communication, it is stated that the District Resettlement Officer, Pune has accepted petitioners proposal for alternative land from gut no. 176, admeasuring about 4 hector and that the possession of the said land be taken. Pursuant to this communication, as stated above, the possession of an alternative land is also taken by the respondents authority. In these circumstances, the respondents cannot refused to take balance area of 1H. 19R from gut no. 176. There is no justification for the respondents to remain in possession of the land under acquisition as well as the land offered by the petitioners in lieu of the land under acquisition. In my opinion, the ends of justice would meet if the respondents authority are directed to take balance area of 1H.19R from gut no. 176 and return possession of the land which is illegally kept by them. I, therefore, pass following order : WP 1464/2000 4 ORDER i. The respondents authorities are directed to retain possession of 1H.19R from gut no. 176 belonging to the petitioners and return balance area of 1H.21A to the petitioners from this gut number. ii. The land, which is allowed to be retained by the respondents, shall as far as possible, be adjacent to the land already allotted to the project affected persons viz. Sindhu Kangude and Dnyanoba Botage. iii. The respondents are further directed to return possession of an area of land admeasuring 1H.60R from gut no. 43; an area of 39R from gut no. 175/2 and an area of about 80R from gut no. 124/2 to the petitioners. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. (R. V. MORE, J.)