/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3720 OF 2003 Anil P. Lunkad & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Shri.P.B. Shaligram for Petitioners. Smt.S.S. Bhende AGP for Respondent No.1 to 3 & 5. Shri.D.R. More for Respondent No.4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : 27th FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the Petitioners are seeking following reliefs:- “A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 5 and particularly to Respondent No.4 P.C.M.C. to Rehabilitate / 2/ and to Resettle the Petitioners by giving the alternate and suitable premises in locality of Chinchwad Station nearby on Bombay-Pune Highway. B) All the Petitioners No.1 to 26 may be declared as “PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS” under Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. C) Pending the hearing of this W.P. the Hon' ble Court may grant further time of about 6 months from the date of order in W.P. No.St.14928/03 to vacate their respective Shops on the terms that deems fit and proper. D) Ad-interim order in above terms may pleased be granted. E) Any other just and necessary order may be passed. / 3/ F) All the petitioners' Shops may be protected till further orders.” 2. Brief facts in nutshell are that the Petitioners are permanent residents of Pimpri/Chinchwad area and they are tenants in their respective shops which are situated in this area. Acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Respondents and on 21/11/1988, an award was passed for acquisition of land for road widening of Bombay Pune Road to the extent of 61 mtrs. The Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the said award. However, that writ petition was disposed of and an opportunity was granted to the Petitioners to file representation to the concerned authority. Accordingly, representations were filed by the Petitioners on 5/5/2003. The Commissioner, however, rejected the representations which were filed by the Petitioners herein. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners were Projected Affected Persons as per the provisions of The Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. He / 4/ invited our attention to the Section 2(10) which defines term 'project'. He also invited our attention to the Section 2(10)(c) which reads as under:- “(10) “project” means,- (a).............................................................................; (b)............................................................................; (c) a public utility project, that is to say, any work of the construction, extension, improvement or development of public utility other than irrigation project and power project; or (d)..............................................................................; 4. He submitted that, therefore, under the provisions of the said Act, the Petitioners were entitled to get the alternate lands in lieu of lands which were acquired by the Respondents. Next contention made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners was that under Article 38 of Constitution of India, the State was under an obligation to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of people and the State was also under an obligation to strive to minimise the inequalities in income etc. / 5/ 5. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. It is an admitted position that the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 are not applicable. The provisions of said Act would be applicable only if a notification U/s.11 of the said Act is issued specifying villages or areas which are likely to be affected or benefited by such projects. It is an admitted position that no such notification was issued by the Government as envisaged under the said Act. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ganpat Balwant Pawar & Ors. V/s. Special land Acquisition officer, reported in 1984 Mh.L.J. 752 has held in para No.26 and 27 as under:- “26. It cannot be said that the provisions of the Resettlement Act prohibits the State Government from having recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The contrary view to be found in the judgment of the Division bench is, with great respect, inconsistent with the clear language and the scheme contained in Chapter III of / 6/ the Resettlement Act. It is open to the Government to decide to resettle persons who have been displaced as a result of a project any time it seems desirable. For example, if a project has been completed, say three or four years ago, and there are persons yet to be resettled, it is always open to the Government to take such action as it deems fit to resettle those persons. One of the actions that can be taken is to provide lands to them by acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is only when, in anticipation of a project or simultaneously with the starting of a project, the State Government issues a declaration as envisaged in Section 11(1) of the Act that the other provisions of the Act come into play. It is only in such cases that the State Government is under an obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under this Act to achieve the stated object of resettling “as many displaced persons as possible”. 27. We may now indicate our conclusions in this / 7/ regard:- It is not correct to say that after 11th of March 1977 resettlement of persons displaced as a result of any project cannot be done except in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. The procedure prescribed under the Resettlement Act becomes applicable only when a declaration is made under Section 11(1) of that Act that the provisions of the said Act shall be applicable to a project. Such a declaration will follow only after the formation of the opinion by the State Government that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to make such a declaration. When such a notification is not issued or has not been issued, the Government is free to take / 8/ recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to resettle the persons who are displaced or will be displaced as a result of any project. When there is no notification under Section 11(1) of the Resettlement Act, there is naturally no obligation upon the State Government to resettle persons because the provisions of this Act are not followed and payment of compensation to the affected persons may be enough for the land acquired from them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. When there is a notification, the obligation is only to follow the procedure for resettling “as many displaced persons as possible”. The obligation is relating to the procedure to be followed.” 6. Thus, Full Bench of this Court in the above case has held that / 9/ the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 would apply only if a notification is issued under the said act. Ratio of that judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Petitioners would not be entitled to seek the alternate accommodations in lieu of lands which are acquired, by taking recourse of provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. Said submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners cannot be accepted. It is a well settled position in law that directive principles which are found in part 4 of the Constitution of India are not enforceable. Article 37 of Constitution of India specifically lays down as under:- “Article 37. Application of the principles contained in this Part.- The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.” / 10/ 7. Thus, there is no merit in the submissions made by the Petitioners. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Under these circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ( D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)