The petitioner, a widow in her early nineties, was the lawful owner of a 300 sq. ft. house located in Village Zhadoli (Ambeghar), Taluka Patan, District Satara. This property was acquired in 2012 for the Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary Project, which had been initiated under the Wild Life (Protection) Act to protect and conserve wildlife. The petitioner’s late husband had been the original owner, and upon his death in 1998, she inherited the house.

However, despite her long tenure as the rightful owner, the petitioner’s name was not included in the official list of project-affected persons, and she did not receive any compensation or alternate accommodation. This omission led to a prolonged struggle for justice, during which the petitioner made several representations to the authorities, including the filing of a complaint with the State Lok Ayukta. However, her grievances were dismissed, and she was denied rehabilitation.

   

The main argument advanced by the petitioner was that her property had been taken for the project, and she was entitled to rehabilitation under the Wild Life Act. The authorities, however, argued that since her name did not appear in the village records before the "appointed date" of October 10, 1985 (the cut-off date for claims under the Act), she was not entitled to compensation or alternate land. The State also contended that because the petitioner was allegedly living with her three step-sons, who had received compensation and alternate accommodation, she was not entitled to separate rehabilitation.

On the other hand, the petitioner refuted this reasoning, arguing that the compensation and rehabilitation given to her step-sons were related to their respective properties, not to the land and house that belonged to her. She also emphasized that her entitlement to the property had arisen through inheritance upon her husband's death in 1998, and therefore, her name did not need to be recorded before 1985 to claim compensation.

The High Court closely examined the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, particularly sections that deal with the resettlement of affected persons. The Act allows for the inheritance of rights in land within sanctuary limits, explicitly recognizing the right of succession as an exception to the general prohibition on acquiring new rights in such land after a notification is issued.

The court highlighted the fact that while the "appointed date" for the project was 1985, the actual acquisition and displacement took place much later, in 2012. Furthermore, the village records, which had not been maintained before 2001, confirmed the petitioner’s ownership of the property as early as 1998, long before the actual relocation occurred. The court held that the petitioner’s inheritance of her husband’s property was lawful and that the petitioner’s claim for rehabilitation was valid under the law, regardless of the appointed date.

Moreover, the court rejected the respondent's argument of treating the petitioner and her step-sons as a "single unit" for purposes of rehabilitation. The step-sons had been allotted individual units of alternate land, and the court found no legal basis for grouping the petitioner with her step-sons as a single unit when it came to compensation and resettlement.

In light of these findings, the Bombay High Court issued the following directions:

Rehabilitation and Allotment of Land: The petitioner, as the rightful heir and property owner, is entitled to compensation and alternate accommodation. She should be allotted 300 sq. ft. of land with a residential house in Village Palus, District Sangli, in the same manner as other project-affected persons from the same village.

Timely Implementation: Given the petitioner’s advanced age (92 years old), the court directed that the allotment of land and accommodation be made urgently, with a deadline set for 12 weeks from the date of the court's order.

Absence of “Single Unit” Theory: The court affirmed that there is no provision in the Wild Life Act supporting the idea of treating an entire family as a single unit for purposes of rehabilitation. The law recognizes individual ownership and entitlements, and each claimant must be treated individually based on their own property rights.

This ruling reinforces the legal framework for the rehabilitation of project-affected persons under the Wild Life (Protection) Act and clarifies key issues related to inheritance, compensation, and the rights of individuals who may have been overlooked or wrongly denied benefits. It serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal provisions and ensuring that the rights of affected persons are upheld, particularly in cases where environmental conservation projects intersect with the lives and properties of local communities.

For the petitioner, the court's decision marks a long-awaited victory, ensuring that at the age of 92, she will finally receive the compensation and rehabilitation that she is rightfully entitled to under the law. This case also sets a precedent for future land acquisition disputes under the Wild Life Act, highlighting the need for thorough and fair consideration of all affected parties.