Disposed¶31

Eknath Dattu Sawant and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 May 2025WP/10313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cash compensation instead of agricultural land for project-affected persons; Wang Marathwadi Medium Irrigation Project; Village Jinti and Village Nigade; 197 PAPs; Rs.70.71 crores demand; writ of mandamus; payment within three months; rule made absolute; writ petitions disposed of without costs; affidavit of acquiring body acceding to demand.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay the petitioners cash compensation in lieu of alternate lands within three months from the date the order is uploaded; rule made absolute; both petitions disposed of without costs. ¶31

Eknath Dattu Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, project-affected persons who were offered agricultural lands as compensation/rehabilitation, should be paid cash compensation instead of the alternate agricultural land.

¶17

Court's answer

Considering that the petitioners were dispossessed in 1997, the cash compensation amount in lieu of alternate lands must be paid to the petitioners within three months from the date the order is uploaded.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The rule is made absolute and both writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to pay cash compensation, but without costs.

¶31

Key takeaways

The affidavit filed by the 9th respondent in Writ Petition No. 3519 of 2022 may also be taken as filed in connected Writ Petition No. 10313 of 2022.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.), 7 May 2025: Project-affected persons (PAPs) of the Wang Marathwadi Medium Irrigation Project (Villages Jinti and Nigade), who lost their lands in 1997 and were offered alternate agricultural lands (allotted 2018, found unsuitable, possession never handed over), sought a writ of mandamus for cash compensation instead of land. By affidavit dated 7th May 2025, Respondent No. 9 (the acquiring body) acceded to the demand; a fresh proposal was sent on 16.07.2024, and the Government of Maharashtra by letter dated 10.10.2024 accepted monetary compensation for 197 PAPs (demand of Rs.70.71 crores) in place of alternate land. Held: considering the dispossession in 1997, the cash compensation in lieu of alternate lands must be paid within three months from the date of upload of the order; rule made absolute; both petitions disposed of without costs. The affidavit filed in W.P. 3519 of 2022 was taken as filed in connected W.P. 10313 of 2022.

¶1

1.WP.3519.19 AND 10313.22

¶2

ppn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed PRACHI by PRACHIPRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2025.05.08 WRIT PETITION NO. 3519 OF 2022 17:08:58 +0530

¶5

Kalu Dattu Pawar … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 10313 OF 2022

¶8

Eknath Dattu Sawant & Ors. … Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr S. G. Deshmukh i/by Mr. G. T. Kanchanpurkar for Petitioners in both the petitions.

¶10

Mr R. S. Pawar, AGP for State in WP/3519/22. Smt V. R. Raje, AGP Datar for State in WP/10313/22. Mr Sachin Gite for Respondent no.9 in both petitions.

¶11

CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 7 MAY 2025

¶12

PC (M. S. Sonak, J) :-

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

1.WP.3519.19 AND 10313.22

¶17

The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus to pay cash compensation instead of compensation in the form of agricultural land.

¶18

There is no dispute that the petitioners are the projectaffected persons [PAPs] and were offered agricultural lands as compensation/rehabilitation. However, for various grounds and reasons set out in the petition, the petitioners have claimed cash compensation instead of agricultural lands.

¶19

The 9^th respondent, i.e., the acquiring body, has filed an affidavit dated 7^th May 2025 in this petition. By this affidavit, the 9^th respondent has acceded to the petitioners’ demand for cash compensation. This is evident from paragraph 4 of the affidavit, which is transcribed below for the convenience of the reference:-

¶20

“4. I say that the Respondent No. 9 had sent the fresh proposal on 16.07.2024 to the office of the Respondent no. 2, and thereby proposed to grant the monetary compensation to the project affected persons from Village Jinti and Village Nigade. I say that, some of the villagers accepted the alternate land offered to them in Sangli District, however, 197 project affected persons were not ready to accept the alternate land offered to them for which a demand for Rs.70.71 crores was made. The Respondent no 1 and 2 thereafter took the policy decision to give the monetary compensation to these 197 project affected persons instead of the alternate land. The Government of Maharashtra by its letter dated 10.10.2024 have informed the office of the Respondent No. 9 that the proposal for giving the monetary compensation instead of the alternate land for the project affected persons of Wang Marathwadi Medium Irrigation Project is accepted. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT - A is the copy of the said proposal sent by the office of the Respondent No. 9 and the letter received from the office of the Respondent No. 1 dated 10.10.2024.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

1.WP.3519.19 AND 10313.22

¶23

Mr. Gite states that the affidavit filed by the 9^th respondent, though filed in Writ Petition No.3519 of 2022, may also be taken as filed in connected Writ Petition No.10313 of 2022.

¶24

Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that in view of the above statement, the petition could be disposed of by directing the respondents to pay the petitioners the cash compensation within a time-bound schedule.

¶25

Mr. Deshmukh states that the petitioners lost their lands in 1997. The alternate agricultural lands were allotted only in 2018. However, that was not suitable, and therefore, the petitioners have been demanding cash compensation. The petitioners did not even accept the alternate lands, and admittedly, possession of the alternate lands was never handed over to the petitioners, though it may have been offered in 2018.

¶26

Thus, from 1997 to 2018, the petitioners were neither paid any compensation nor any alternate lands. Mr. Gite submits that 100% of the compensation was paid to the petitioners, but 65% had to be returned by the petitioners to the Government for alternate lands. Thus, the petitioners have received 35% of the compensation amount.

¶27

Still, considering that the petitioners were dispossessed in 1997, we direct that the cash compensation amount in lieu

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

1.WP.3519.19 AND 10313.22

¶30

of alternate lands must be paid to the petitioners within three months from the date this order is uploaded.

¶31

The rule is made absolute in the above terms. Both the petitions are disposed of with the above direction, but without costs.

¶32

All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶33

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶34

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Eknath Dattu Sawant and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eknath Dattu Sawant and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Vilas Yeshwant Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharshtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Minakshi Krushnat Waghmode Vs Suvarna Vasant Bhise and Ors.

Laxman Shankar Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vivek Sureshchandra Mehta Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Div. Pune and Ors.

Sureshchandra Prakashchandra Mehta Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Bhairappa Amoghsiddh Mhetre and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Dept. of General Administration and Ors.