SHRIKRISHNA MAHADEV KOKANE SINCE DEC THR LR AND ANR v. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ORS
Dismissal of Rehabilitation Claims for Project Affected Persons due to Inordinate Delay and Non-Retrospective Application of the 1999 Rehabilitation Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:16416-DB
Decision Date: 07-04-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999; Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976; Constitution of India, Article 226; Principle of Delay and Laches; Prospective vs Retrospective Application of Statutes
- Facts: The Petitioners, legal heirs of deceased landowners Shrikrishna and Chandrakant Kokane, claimed ownership of lands in village Supedhar, Pune. These lands were acquired for the Dimbe Irrigation Project via awards passed on 3rd January 1972 and 30th March 1977. The original landowners accepted the compensation without protest and never applied for rehabilitation. For the first time on 26th February 2022, nearly 45 to 50 years after the acquisition, the Petitioners applied to the Deputy Collector for allotment of alternate land in the beneficial zone. They sought directions to the authorities to issue notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, expressing readiness to deposit 65% of the compensation received.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioners approached the Bombay High Court under its writ jurisdiction by filing Writ Petition No. 3623 of 2023, seeking directions against the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune, and other revenue authorities.
- Issue: Whether the Petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation benefits under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, despite an inordinate delay of 45-50 years and the non-retrospective nature of the Act.
- Holding: No, the Petition is dismissed on the grounds of gross delay, laches, and the non-retrospective application of the 1999 Act.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Petition is hit by gross and inordinate delay and laches, as the claim was asserted 50 years after the land acquisition awards. It noted that the original landowners accepted compensation without protest and never sought rehabilitation during their lifetime. Legally, the Court held that the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, does not have retrospective effect. Furthermore, the previous legislation, the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, contained no provision equivalent to Section 16(2)(a) of the 1999 Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents and co-ordinate bench decisions, the Court concluded that the Petitioners could not revive a stale claim after decades without any valid explanation for the delay.
🔒 For Members Only