In a recent ruling of Dagdabai Vitthal Kadam vs The State of Maharashtra, Through the Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Another, the Court addressed a crucial issue surrounding the entitlement of a widow, whose residential property was acquired for the Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary Project, to compensation and rehabilitation. The judgment highlights key aspects of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and its provisions on land acquisition for wildlife sanctuaries, providing clarity on the rights of project-affected individuals and the responsibilities of the authorities involved.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, a 92-year-old widow, sought the allotment of alternate land from the State after her house was acquired in 2012 for the Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary Project. The land in question, measuring 300 sq. ft., was owned by her late husband, who passed away in 1998. Following his death, the petitioner inherited the property, which was subsequently acquired under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Despite her legal entitlement as the heir to the property, the petitioner’s name was not initially included in the list of project-affected persons, and she was denied compensation or rehabilitation.
The petitioner’s grievance stems from the refusal of the authorities to allot her alternate land or accommodation, with the argument being that she was living with her three step-sons, who had already received compensation and alternate land. This led to the rejection of her claims by the authorities, who also cited her name not appearing in the village records before 1985—the appointed date for the project’s acquisition.
The Petitioner’s Legal Position:
The petitioner contended that her inheritance of the property after her husband’s death in 1998 should qualify her for rehabilitation under the provisions of the Wildlife Act. She argued that the authorities had incorrectly dismissed her case by relying on outdated and irrelevant records, particularly the fact that her name did not appear in the records before 1985, a time when the village records were not maintained.
The petitioner's legal counsel emphasized that under Section 20 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the inheritance of land was exempt from the acquisition restrictions imposed by the law. This provision clearly allows for the acquisition of rights through succession, which directly applied to the petitioner’s case as she inherited the property from her late husband.
Court’s Analysis:
In reviewing the case, the Court highlighted several crucial points. First, the petitioner was clearly the owner of the acquired property, as her name had been entered in the land records of the Gram Panchayat following her husband’s death in 1998. The Court emphasized that the Wildlife Act recognizes the inheritance of rights and does not prevent the petitioner from claiming compensation or rehabilitation based on her succession rights.
The Court further rejected the respondent’s argument of treating the petitioner and her step-sons as a “single unit,” as the step-sons had each been granted individual plots of land for rehabilitation. This contention was found to be inconsistent with the treatment of each individual as a distinct claimant under the law. The fact that the step-sons were allotted separate properties further underscored the erroneous nature of the respondent’s stance.
Key Legal Provisions:
The Court referred to several sections of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, notably Section 20, which allows for the inheritance of land and property, and Sections 19 to 24, which deal with the resettlement of affected persons. The provisions ensure that the rights of those affected by the creation of wildlife sanctuaries are recognized, and the State is mandated to make suitable alternative arrangements for their rehabilitation.
Section 20 specifically permits the acquisition of rights through succession, making it clear that the petitioner’s rights, inherited from her late husband, were legitimate and should have been considered in the rehabilitation process. The Court found the respondent's reliance on the appointed date of 1985 to exclude the petitioner from the list of affected persons to be unfounded and legally untenable.
Court's Order and Directions:
In its final ruling, the Court directed the authorities to provide the petitioner with alternate land admeasuring 300 sq. ft. with a dwelling unit in Sangli, where others from the same village had been rehabilitated. The Court emphasized the urgency of the matter, particularly considering the petitioner’s advanced age, and ordered the allotment to be completed within 12 weeks.
The judgment underscores the need for a pragmatic and compassionate approach when dealing with project-affected individuals, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, such as the petitioner, who has spent her entire life in the acquired property.
Conclusion:
This case is a significant step in recognizing the rights of individuals displaced by development projects, particularly in wildlife conservation areas. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the legal framework for land acquisition, ensuring that the rights of affected persons are not overlooked in favor of bureaucratic formalities. It also serves as a reminder of the flexibility required in interpreting laws to account for real-life circumstances, such as inheritance and the evolving nature of land records.
For those affected by similar projects, this case offers a powerful precedent in asserting their right to rehabilitation and compensation, and it highlights the importance of addressing grievances with due consideration of legal entitlements under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
