[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PIL NO.179 OF 2007 Shri.Soma Vithoba Talpe ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents .... Petitioner in person present Mr.R.P.Behre AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 4, 2009 DATE : MARCH 4, 2009 DATE : MARCH 4, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Petitioner is present in person. 2. Heard. 3. The Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the Respondent-State Government has been erecting dams without any purpose causing huge loss to the public exchequer resulting in uprooting the agriculturists particularly tribals who are affected by the project. He has also espoused the cause of project affected persons and their rehabilitation. 4. In addition to the general grievances made in the petition against the policy of the State Government in constructing more than six dams on one river, which according to the Petitioner, is [-2-] not required as it is not serving any purpose. It is his case that he has not received compensation in respect of his own land. We have gone through the affidavits in reply. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya Mumbai, it has been clarified that six dams (project) were required to be erected for the benefits of the people at large and he has spelt out the benefits of dams and irrigation which includes the stabilization of water supply, the welfare of native population and a relative decrease in deforestation of land for agriculture, availability of drinking water and water for industrial use and the potential opportunities which are created for employment. The detail information is furnished in paragraph 5 of the affidavit. In so far as the case of the Petitioner is concerned, it has been specifically stated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, has already been made to the District Court. In affidavit filed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune, it is stated that the matter has been referred and copy of the communication made to the District Judge while [-3-] forwarding the reference is annexed at Exhibit-I and sum of Rs.1,52,651/- is also credited in the Court. The Petitioner can very well contest the matter before the Reference Court and get his share of compensation adjudicated. We therefore, find that the authorities have been able to justify the erection of project and the Petitioner has not been able to place on record failure on the part of the State in rehabilitating the project affected persons. In so far as the persons whose land have been acquired for the purpose of erection of dams is concerned, they must have been paid compensation, if in any case compensation is not paid, the State would take necessary steps to see that they are paid compensation and statutory interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act and also rehabilitated as per the Statute. 5. We do not think it necessary to order any inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation into the matter. 6. With the above directions, we dispose of the petition. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]