VBC 1 wp6067-10-12.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6067 OF 2010 Maruti Mahadu Gurav. ...Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr.M.S.Karnik for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : SHRI MOHIT S.SHAH, C.J. AND DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. October 12, 2010. P.C.: The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order dated 22 June 2010 passed by Respondent No.2 herein, the Collector, Pune, Resettlement Department and Deputy Director, Resettlement, Pune, by which the allotment of land made in favour of the Petitioner on 28 September 2004 (Exhibit ‘B’) has been cancelled. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner’s land came to be acquired for Chaskaman Project in the year 1989. As a part of the resettlement policy, the Petitioner was offered an VBC 2 wp6067-10-12.10 alternate land by allotment order dated 28 September 2004 (Exhibit B). As per the said policy, the Petitioner was required to pay 65% of the amount of compensation of the acquired land in order to get alternate land. There is no dispute over the fact that in the circumstances, the Petitioner had already deposited Rs. 30,000/- with Respondent No.2 as far back as on 7 May 2003 and it is thereafter, that the allotment order dated 28 September 2004 was issued for allotting alternate land. However, when the Petitioner went to take possession of the land, in pursuance of the aforesaid allotment order dated 28 September 2004, the Petitioner found that the said land was already allotted to some other person and, therefore, the Petitioner could not take possession of the said allotted land. The Respondents, however, did not take any further steps to allot another alternate land to the Petitioner and, therefore, he made a representation dated 18 October 2007 (Exhibit E). Due to the inaction on the part of the Respondents in not making any allotment and also aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22 June 2010 by which Respondent No.2 cancelled the previous allotment order dated 28 September 2004 on the ground of non-payment of 65% of the amount of compensation for the VBC 3 wp6067-10-12.10 acquired land, the Petitioner has moved this Court. 3. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune, it is not disputed that the Petitioner has deposited Rs.30,000/- as per the receipt dated 7 May 2003 at Exhibit ‘C’ to the Petition. It is, therefore, beyond our comprehension as to on what basis the impugned order came to be passed to the effect that the Petitioner has not deposited 65% of the compensation amount. 4. In view of the above, it would be appropriate to direct Respondent No.2 to allot an alternate land to the Petitioner without demanding any further amount and to adjust the amount of Rs.30,000/- already deposited on 7 May 2003 as per Exhibit ‘C’ as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two weeks from today. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The Petition to be listed on 28 October 2010 for reporting compliance. CHIEF JUSTICE. DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.