Bombay HC Rejects Plea For Alternate Land Over 1959 Koyna Acquisition, Cites 63-Year Delay
· Free Press Journal
Mumbai, March 24: Refusing to entertain a claim raised more than six decades after land acquisition proceedings had attained finality, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking allotment of alternate land for property acquired for the Koyna project in 1959. The court held that such belated and “misconceived” claims cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction.
Petition filed by legal heir
Visit bettingx.club for more information.
The petition was filed by the legal heir of Laxman Atmaram Niman (Pawar), seeking directions to authorities in Raigad and Satara to process a proposal for grant of alternate land.
Court finds plea vague and unsupported
A division bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata said the prayers in the petition were “ambiguous, rather unusual”, and noted that the pleadings failed to disclose any legal basis for the reliefs sought.
The petitioner had approached the court seeking directions to the Additional Collectors of Satara and Raigad to process his application dated August 8, 2022, and allot alternate land if found eligible.
Acquisition had attained finality, says court
According to the petitioner, his predecessors’ lands were acquired for the Koyna project in Satara, with an award declared on April 15, 1959. The court, however, observed that once land is acquired and an award is passed, “it must ordinarily be presumed that the compensation determined under the award was received by the landowners and that the acquisition proceedings attained finality”.
Extraordinary delay noted
The bench underscored that the petition had been filed after an “extraordinary delay of more than six decades”, and held that such belated claims cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction.
No retrospective application of law
It further held that the petitioner could not invoke the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 – later replaced by the 1999 rehabilitation law – as the acquisition had concluded long before the legislation came into force. “A statute does not operate retrospectively unless such intention is expressly provided,” the bench said.
Also Watch:
Bombay HC Declines Urgent Hearing On Anil Ambani’s Plea Against Bank Of Baroda Action; Cites Pending SC CaseCourt warns against speculative litigation
The court also took note of similar petitions being filed and termed them “clearly speculative in nature,” warning against abuse of judicial process. Quoting Supreme Court precedents, it said litigation is not “like buying a lottery ticket” in hope of an undeserved windfall.
Finding no merit, the court dismissed the petition.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/