1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4719 OF 2007. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT PHUR AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A. M. Gordey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for State Respondent. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent no.4. Coram : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009. Matter is heard further with reference to our orders dated 7/7/2009, 14/7/2009 & report of Court Commissioner dated 6/8/2009. Three issues, now need consideration in this writ petition after the report of Commissioner has come on record. The first is the provision of accommodation for 351 families, the second is reasonable time for construction of houses and third is the request of the petitioners for grant of soft loan therefor. Advocate Shri Gordey has stated that in so far as the accommodation of 351 families is concerned, sites are available, and therefore, that may not be a major problem. According to him, at last a period of one year will reasonably be required to construct the 2 houses at alternate sites. He states that insistence upon shifting to transit camps in the mean while is too harsh looking to the type of accommodation available in transit camps. He further argues that at least till next Mansoon and rains, there is no question of back-water reaching the village and villagers can be permitted to continue at some places till their alternate houses come up. Lastly, he states that because of the dispute and sudden loss of source of income as the agricultural lands were also acquired, the amount of compensation which most of the villagers received has been spent elsewhere and some of them are finding it very difficult to proceed further with construction. He therefore, states that in such a situation, if the Government can consider the request of the petitioners for extending some housing loans on reasonable terms and conditions, that would assist the cause not only of acquisition, but also of general public. He, in the alternative, states that some Housing Agency like MHADA may be entrusted with the construction of houses at the site. Learned Additional Government Pleader Smt. Bharti Dangre as also Advocate Shri Parchure for the respondent no.4 are opposing the request. They state that the other villages and villagers have already 3 shifted to alternate places and have also constructed or undertaken construction of their houses. It is contended that the legal entitlement of the petitioners is already received by them and whether in such circumstances, question whether to provide any other assistance shall be a policy decision which may take some time. Both the learned Counsels state that the petitioners have not shown their bonafide by offering to shift to alternate sites or transit camps in near future. After hearing the respective Counsel, and after perusal of the report of the Commissioner, we find that the petitioners should have made alternate arrangements for themselves or they should have offered to shift to transit camps to show their bonafide. In the absence of necessary material, we are not doubting the intentions of the petitioners in the matter at all, but still we feel that more responsible approach was necessary. In the interest of justice and at their risk, We grant them time till 30-04-2010 to construct their houses at alternate sites offered to them by the Government. If their houses are not constructed by them till then and in any case in first week of May 2010, the respondents shall be free to shift them to transit camps. 4 However, the arrangement made above is without prejudice to the request of the petitioners for grant of soft loan or for making the alternate housing arrangement for them by the Government. If the Government considers it appropriate, the Government may make appropriate provision for said assistance to the petitioners if its policy permits it. However, it is made clear that fact that the issue of assistance is being considered by the Government or because the Government has rejected or not rejected the assistance till last moment, will not exempt petitioners from shifting to transit camps in 1st week of May 2010. At the request of the Advocate Shri Gordey and though other Counsels are opposing it, we observe that if the petitioners have got any other grievance having no bearing on this order and not covered in this petition or by this order, they are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. With these directions and observations, we dispose of the petition with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/