1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2553-2554 OF 2004

Dhansingh Vitthalrao Bhoite ……. Appellant

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. …… Respondents  

O R D E R

The appellant claims to be the owner of land bearing Gat No.24 admeasuring 1 hectare 8

ares situated at village Nanvij, Taluka Daud, District Pune. The said land was submerged in water on

construction  of   K.T.  Weir  at  Sonawadi  area  and  his  standing  crop  was  destroyed.  As  no

compensation was  paid and as he was not rehabilitated, he filed Writ    Petition No.4090 of 2000

seeking a direction for allotment of an alternative land (Survey No.50/1, Mauje) and for payment of

compensation for loss of standing crop. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 18.12.2000

by directing the second respondent to either allot a suitable alternative land to the appellant within

three months or declare an award for compensation for acquisition of land within six months. The

Appellant however thereafter made an application dated 9.2.2001 to second Respondent to allot Gat

No.197, Mauje – Daund instead of the land earlier suggested. The appellant again approached the

High Court by filing another Writ Petition No.4021 of 2002 seeking a direction to respondents to

forthwith allot Gat No.197 measuring 5 acres  situated at Mauje Daund, Taluka Daund, District

Pune,  which   he  had  identified  as  available  alternative  land  and  also  pay  Rs.32500/-  as  crop

compensation. The second writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 20.8.2002 by the High

Court,  holding that  the  appellant  was  not  entitled  to  alternative land.  It  however directed  the

respondents  to  declare the  award and pay the  compensation in regard to  the  submerged land.

Thereafter, the appellant filed Civil Application No.2094 of 2003 reiterating his prayer for allotment

of the said five acres of land. The civil application which was in the nature of a petition for review of

the order dated 20.8.2002, was rejected by order dated 23.2.2004. The orders dated 20.8.2002 and

23.2.2004 are challenged in these appeals by special leave.  

2. We are informed that  the  order of  the  High  Court  has  been  complied  with  by  the

respondents by making an award in regard to the land that was submerged.  

3. The appellant contends that he is an ‘affected person’ entitled to rehabilitation under the

provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the Act’)  and the  High Court erred in rejecting his  claim. The appellant contends  that the

provisions of the said Act will apply wherever the affected zone in respect of an irrigation projects

exceeds 50 hectares. According to him, the area affected by the project in question (K.T.  Weir at

Sonawadi) was 57 hectares and therefore relief ought to have been given to him by directing grant of

alternative land as contemplated under section 10 of the Act.  This contention has been expressly

considered and rejected by the High Court.  

4. It is true that section 1(4)(a) of the Act provides that the Act would apply to all irrigation

projects of which the area of the affected zone exceeds 50 hectares. ‘Affected zone’ is defined in

section 2(1) of the Act as the area declared under  section 13 to constitute the area of affected zone

under that project. Section 13 requires the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to

declare the extent of area which shall constitute the area of affected zone under the project.  The

Appellant has not produced  any such declaration. The respondents have stated that no declaration

has been made under section 13 of the Act. In the absence of a declaration, there is no ‘affected zone’

for the purposes of the Act and therefore, the appellant cannot be considered as an ‘affected person’

entitled to relief under the provisions of the Act.  

5. The appellant however relied upon a letter dated 14.12.2000 addressed to the Tehsildar,

Daund wherein the Deputy Executive Engineer of Small Dams and Irrigation Division has stated that

the area that is likely to be submerged with reference to the Sonwadi Tal is 57 hectares. The appellant

contended that this showed that the affected area was more than 50 hectares and consequently the

Act would apply. The respondents have explained that the letter dated 14.12.2000 merely mentioned

the area that was proposed to be acquired as 57 hectares as an approximate area and that the said

area was  not  submerged  nor acquired;  and  that  was  evident  from the  non-publication  of  any

notification under section 13 of the Act.   

6. If the affected area was really more than 50 hectares and the State Government had failed

to discharge its statutory duty by issuing declaration under section 13 of the Act, the appropriate

remedy for the appellant was to seek a direction to the State to perform its statutory duty by making

a declaration of the area affected. Having failed to do so, his remedy is only to pursue the remedy of

compensation and seek reference for enhancement if he is aggrieved by the quantum. Be that as it

may.  

7. In so far as these appeals are concerned, the question is limited. As the State Government

has not issued a declaration under section 13 of the Act, the appellant will not be entitled to seek

benefit under the provisions of the said Act as rightly held by the High Court. We find no reason to

interfere with the order of the High Court and the appeals are dismissed accordingly.  

…………………………….J

[R. V. Raveendran]

…………………………..J [P. Sathasivam]

New Delhi; June 20, 2008