Ashok Jagan Meshram v. State Of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Water Resources Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai And Others

946WP1927.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1927 OF 2024 Ashok Jagam Meshram Vs.

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Water Resources Dept. and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1920 OF 2024 Suraj Premdas Bankar and others Vs State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Water Resources Dept. and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. Hrishikesh Dattatray Rothe, counsel for petitioners in both the petitions. Mr. S.M. Ukey, Addl. G.P for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.K. Bhoyar, counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

CORAM

: ANIL S. KILOR and RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.

DATE : 09/12/2025.

1.

Heard.

2.

In these petitions, the petitioners are seeking compensation for the land that was utilized for the Gosikhurd Irrigation Project. Admittedly, the land in respect of which the petitioners claim compensation was allotted to them by the Government in the year 1999. Two years before the said allotment, a proposal had forwarded to the Government identifying this land as part of the submergence area of the Gosikhurd Project.

3.

The proposal was formally accepted as a submergence area three months after the land was allotted to the petitioners. rkn

946WP1927.2024.odt Thus, admittedly, the land stood in the name of the petitioners only for a brief period from 31/05/1999 to 03/08/1999. 4.

Moreover, once it is admitted that the land for which the petitioners are claiming compensation was originally owned by the Government, it cannot be said that the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, particularly in the absence of any statutory provision recognising such entitlement. 5.

Furthermore, the petitions also deserve to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In the year 2012, the petitioners were informed that they were not entitled to any compensation. Despite this, they waited for twelve years to file the present writ petitions.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) rkn