Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to allot alternate plots within six months to the legal heirs of Waman Ganpatrao Kadam, whose land was acquired for the Koyna dam project in 1960 but were never rehabilitated. The court warned that the Revenue Secretary would be held personally responsible for compliance and must submit a report by August 30.

A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain, on February 21, pulled up the state for its “bureaucratic delays and red tape,” which had denied justice to the family for over six decades. The court observed that despite the absence of any dispute over the family’s entitlement, they had been made to run “from pillar to post” for their rightful rehabilitation.

The petitioners, two sons and two daughters of Kadam, currently reside in Koyna Velhi, a camp housing displaced families. Their father’s 13.37-hectare agricultural land in Velhe village, Satara district, was acquired by the state under an award dated January 17, 1961. However, they neither received compensation nor were given alternate land as required by the government’s rehabilitation policy.

In November 2017, 1.6 hectares of land in Pendhar, Panvel, was allotted to them. However, in January 2019, the state abruptly cancelled the allotment, citing reasons such as uneven terrain, non-contiguous plots, and existing constructions. The family challenged this cancellation in the High Court, which, in October 2020, set aside the cancellation and directed authorities to re-evaluate the issue after hearing the family.

Despite assurances, the state issued another cancellation order in August 2022, referring the matter to the government under Rule 50 of The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971. The family then approached the High Court again, arguing that this was a deliberate attempt to delay their rehabilitation.

The High Court strongly criticised the state’s handling of the case, noting that the government had never questioned the family’s eligibility for rehabilitation. The court also dismissed the state’s justification for referring the matter to a High-Powered Committee, stating that this was meant to investigate fraudulent claims, whereas the Kadam family’s entitlement was undisputed.

“The entire attempt is to postpone the matter or force the petitioners to run from authority to authority. This cannot be allowed to continue,” the bench said.

It also took issue with the state’s failure to even offer monetary compensation, saying this reflected its lack of interest in following its own rehabilitation policies.

Ordering the state to allot alternate land within six months, the court made it clear that the Revenue Secretary would be held personally responsible for implementing the order. It further directed that if the incumbent officer is transferred, they must inform their successor about the order to prevent any claims of ignorance.

Noting that multiple contempt petitions are filed over similar cases of non-compliance, the bench emphasised that officials must be held accountable for ensuring justice to those displaced by state projects.