AJN 01-AS-WP9243.10 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9243 OF 2010 Gajanan Jaywantrao Dhavale & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Sandeep M. Phatak for the petitioners. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATED : 1ST JULY, 2011. P.C.:- 1. Leave to amend and add Maharashtra Krishan Khore Vikas Mahamandal as party-respondents. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Sanugrah Anudan i.e. ex-gratia payment is not given to them after acquisition of their lands. AJN 01-AS-WP9243.10 : 2 : 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for the State. 4. Mr. Gokhale, learned A.G.P. states that in response to the request made by the Government, the Governing Council of Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal had passed a Resolution and taken a decision in its meeting dated 1/6/2011 to give compensation to the tune of Rs.33.88 lakhs to the concerned agriculturists. This is so stated by Mr. Wankhede, Deputy Secretary Revenue & Forest Department, Manatralaya, who has filed affidavit in this court. We may quote the relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit. “3. I say that by letter dated 11th February 1999, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune submitted proposal to the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in respect of payment of Ex-gratia compensation (Sanugraha Anudan) to the project affected persons whose lands were acquired by an award dated 10th AJN 01-AS-WP9243.10 : 3 : February, 1989 and to whom the compensation for the standing trees/Houses/Electric Pumps, etc. was not paid. I state that at present land are submerged. 4. I state that the State of Maharashtra had published the Manual of land acquisition for the guidance of its officer Paragraph 243 of this Manual speaks about the ex-gratia payment of compensation. Hereto annexed and marked as “Exhibit-1” is a true and correct copy of the said paragraph 243 from the Manual of land acquisition. 5. I state that before taking any final decision on the proposal submitted by the Commissioner as per his letter dated 11th February 1999, it was necessary for the Government to first ascertain the claim made by the Petitioner. I state that unless the report regarding existence of the said structures, trees, etc. and their valuation is made available it will not be possible for the Government to quantify the amount of compensation. I state that in the aforesaid circumstances the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department requested the Secretary, Irrigation Department to submit their report regarding the aforesaid facts. I state that by letter dated 3rd October 2005 addressed to the Chief Engineer, by the Deputy Engineer and Assistant Administrator. It was pointed out that on 27th June, 2005, the order(spot) was inspected when there was immediate level of AJN 01-AS-WP9243.10 : 4 : water. However, at that time, nothing was found to show that there were no existence pump, pipeline, engine, structures, etc. as claimed by the agriculturist. Hereto annexed and marked as “Exhibit-2” is the true and correct copy of the said letter. I state that I have examined the record in respect of the acquisition proceedings from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ujni project (Kukdi Project No.5), Pune. I state that as the matter is old one whatever record was available for my inspection, I have examined the same and I found certain documents which can be considered while examining the scheme of the petitioners. Hereto annexed and marked as “Exhibit-3” are copies of the relevant statements and correspondence made by the agriculturist with the Acquisition Officer from time to time. However, after perusing these documents, it is difficult to come to the conclusion of existence of the houses, trees, etc. as claimed by the petitioner because these documents are silent on that point. I state that from the reading of the said document, it is clear that some of the agricultural owners were having benefits of lift irrigation scheme and they have installed electric pumps for that purpose. However, even from these documents, it is not clear as to how many pumps were there? 6. I state that though the award is passed on 10th February, 1989, the petitioner have first time made AJN 01-AS-WP9243.10 : 5 : grievance regarding additional compensation in the year 1995 that itself create doubt regarding the claim made by them. I say that unless the Government is satisfied regarding the genuineness of the claim it will not be proper for the Government to make payment of compensation as claimed by the petitioner. I state that unless there is a clear evidence of existence of houses, trees, etc. and their valuation, it will not be possible for the Government to determine the amount of Ex-gratia payment. I say that in case the petitioner produce before the Government relevant evidence to support their claim then the Government will certainly consider the claim for the payment of Ex-gratia payment.” 7. I say that inspite of the aforesaid fact and considering the situation and the problem faced by the petitioner and taking into consideration the fact that the land is submerged since the year 1985-86 and the evidence may not be possible tstill the Government has taken sympathetic approach and requested the Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal to consider the matter and make appropriate provision for the payment of Ex-gratia payment. I state that in response to the request made by the Government, the Governing Council of Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal had taken a decision in its meeting dated 1st June, 2011 of their Directors and passed a resolution No.67/18 and sanctioned AJN 01-AS-WP9243.10 : 6 : an amount of Rs.33.88 lakhs for the payment of compensation to the concerned agriculturist. Hereto annexed and marked as “Exhibit-4” is the true and correct copy of the letter dated 16th June, 2011, addressed to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Pune by the Special Superintendent, Maharashtra Krishan Khore Vikas Mahamandal. I state that the Government is hopeful that the aforesaid amount will be distributed to the concerned agriculturist through Maharashtra Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal at the earliest. In these circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner made in the present petition may not survive and petition is liable to be rejected and dismissed with costs.” 5. In view of the above affidavit of Mr. Wankhede, the grievance of the petitioners is substantially redressed. We, therefore, direct the Maharashtra Krishan Khore Vikas Mahamandal to deposit the said amount with the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who shall then distribute the said amount to all the concerned land owners including the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the said amount be distributed according to the area of the lands of the concerned persons which are acquired AJN 01-AS-WP9243.10 : 7 : because the affidavit of Mr. Wankhede indicates that there is no clear evidence of houses, trees, etc. We find this suggestion to be reasonable. The said amount be therefore distributed having regard to the area of the land which was acquired. 6. The entire exercise will be completed within a period of three weeks from today. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]