of 1971” for short) formulated under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, though he was entitled for allotment of land subject to payment of occupancy price, the Government was not justified in rejecting his application in terms of the impugned order. On earlier date when the matter came up before us, we were shown the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai , (1997) 5 SCC 432, we also opined that the facts of the present case are not similar to the facts of the case referred to. Therefore neither the law nor the facts of the judgment in the case of Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) would apply to the present case. In spite of such opinion and direction to the State to respond why the petitioners are not entitled for grant of land in terms of rule 20 of the Rules of 1971, there is no reply from the State. On verification of records, we note that there were three or four lands which were acquired for the formation of Nandur-Mandhmeshwar Canal along with other lands in Gat Nos.188 admeasuring 81 Ares and Gat No.189 admeasuring 62 Ares situated in village Dindori, talukaNiphad, district- Nashik. However, the petitioners are not concerned with Gat No.187 and other lands. According to the petitioners, by virtue of acquiring the above two pieces of land, the petitioners have become landless persons in terms of rule 20. We are aware of the fact that the petitioners could have asked for alternate land in terms of the claim forwarded by the State for the project affected persons under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1976 modified in 1986 and later in 1999. The fact remains that the rejection of application is not on the ground that the petitioners were
