Second Appeal No.386 of 2007

11th April, 2014.

Petitioner Counsel: Shri D.M. KALE

Cases Cited:
Suresh s/o. Tikaram Pustode Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 157 [Para 9]
Nagesh Alias Satish Nagorao Pande Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 1995(1) Mh.L.J.154 [Para 9]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- This second appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 25.3.2004, passed by the learned Fourth Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No.215 of 2003, whereby the appeal was dismissed, which arose from judgment and order dated 12.11.2002, passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 2001, whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The question arose in this appeal is, whether the lower Courts were justified to consider the case of the plaintiff as the project affected person in view of the provisions of The Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.

3. It appears that the case of the plaintiff is that she owned and possessed the agricultural land bearing Survey No.300/2 admeasuring 1H 75R, the State of Maharashtra had acquired 2H 95R belonging to the plaintiff as she also owned other land bearing Survey No.300/4 admeasuring 1H 20R situated at Mouja Tiosa, Taluka Tiosa, District Amravati. The plaintiff, as a result of acquisition, became project affected person as her land was acquired for the purpose of construction of "Upper Wardha Canal". She was left with land admeasuring about 36R only.

4. Thus, she had prayed for declaration and relief that she be granted the certificate as project affected person according to law. The trial Court found that the plaintiff owned the suit land which was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for construction of "Upper Wardha Canal" and, therefore, she was project affected person according to law. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff is entitled to get the certificate as project affected person.

5. I have heard the submission of Shri D.M.Kale, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for appellants/State of Maharashtra, at bar and perused the impugned judgment and order.

6. The declaration was granted in favour of the plaintiff because the plaintiff is a project affected person as defined in Section 2(2)(c)(i) of The Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. Thus, she was entitled to get the certificate from the District Rehabilitation Authority.

7. The first appellate Court, in regular civil appeal, found no merit in the appeal; and confirmed the finding as to facts recorded by the trial Court; and dismissed the appeal.

8. The substantial question of law which was framed by this Court on 31.10.2007, thus :

"Whether the respondent could have been granted the benefit of provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 when the lands were acquired in the year 1980 before the Act came into force.?"

Continued on April 11, 2014 .....

The substantial question of law must be answered in favour of the respondent as the respondent's case is covered by the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 which was operative in the year 1980. In Section 2(7) the term "displaced person" is defined while in Section 2(12) the word "project" is defined. Said Sections 2(7) and 2(12) read, thus :

"Section 2(7) :- displaced person" means any occupant who, on account of the acquisition of his land in the affected zone [including land in the gaothan (hereinafter referred to as "the old goothan")] for the purpose of a Project has been displaced from such land, or any agricultural labourer;"

Section 2(12) :- "Project" means the construction, extension or improvement of any work for the supply of water for the purposes of irrigation (hereinafter called an irrigation project) or for the production and supply of electricity or of any work conducive to electrical development (hereinafter called a power project), and includes any other work of public utility the construction, extension, improvement or development of which results in displacing persons from lands which may be used for such work;

If we read and understand the meaning of what the expression "project displaced person" means by reading above provisions in juxtaposition with each other, then it must be concluded that the respondent could have been granted the certificate that she was a project displaced person within the meaning of above mentioned provisions.

9. Considering the admitted fact that the lands, belonging to the respondent, were acquired in the year 1980 and the fact that at that time The Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, was operative or was in force, I may make reference to the ruling in the case of Suresh s/o Tikaram Pustode ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others, reported at 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 157. The Division Bench of this Court was considering Government Resolution No.EM/1080/35/96-A dated 21.1.1980 in Writ Petition No.2343 of 2000 decided on 23.6.2003. This Court had considered obligation on the part of the State Government to rehabilitate all the project affected persons within a very short and reasonable period and not to make such person waiting for years together for rehabilitation. This Court, therefore, considered 799 project affected persons and their waiting list for seeking employment and observed in paragraph No.5 of the said ruling cited (supra), thus :

"The State Government must honour its commitment given in the Government Resolution and they must do it forthwith in this case and in other cases they must do within a reasonable period of six months from the date of acquisition of land. The routine reply of the State Authorities that the land owners have been awarded compensation cannot be accepted as it is a case of compulsory acquisition under law and not voluntary sale of the land by the land owners. So grant of compensation is no reply to the demand made by such land owners to provide a job to them, as assured under the Government Resolution."

Subsequently, in ruling in the case of Nagesh Alias Satish Nagorao Pande ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another, reported at 1995(1) Mh.L.J.154, the Division Bench of this Court also considered the meaning of "Project Affected Person".

10. Thus, when any land belonging to such person is acquired for any project, he becomes affected person or displaced person and would be entitled to the certificate as such so as to claim the benefit of the State Government's policy, if any, for re-settlement or rehabilitation of project affected or displaced person/persons.

11. Thus, looking to the legal provisions and having answered the substantial question of law as above in the light of the rulings cited (supra), I must conclude that the second appeal has no merits, hence it must be dismissed.

12. In the result, Second Appeal No.386 of 2007 is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.