Forfeiture of a project affected person’s right to alternate land under Section 16(2) of the PAP Act cannot be invoked unless the Collector strictly serves a formal notice under Section 16(2)(a) first-Bombay HC.

⚖️Case Study: Raghunath Ganpati Patil & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

1. Case Details

• Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur)
• Case No.: Writ Petition No. 4648 of 2024
• Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Ahuja & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Neeraj P. Dhote
• Date of Judgment: November 3, 2026
• Petitioners: Raghunath Ganpati Patil and Another (heirs of Petitioner No. 2)
• Respondents: State of Maharashtra and Others

2. Factual Background

• Land belonging to seven co-owners (including the Petitioners) in Gat No. 283 of Village Megholi, Taluka Bhudargad, District Kolhapur was acquired by state authorities for the Megholi Irrigation Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (the PAP Act).
• On April 30, 2008, the District Court at Kolhapur decided a dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation, declaring the two Petitioners together entitled to a half share in the awarded compensation amount of ₹33,585/-. The total compensation remained deposited in the District Court.
• On July 29, 2009, the Petitioners applied under Section 16(1) of the PAP Act for allotment of alternate land (entitlement noted as 0.40 Ares each in the State’s Sankalan Register).
• Respondent No. 3 rejected/disposed of the application on January 7, 2014, citing non-submission of proof of depositing 65% of the compensation amount and a stay on allotment.
• The Petitioners clarified via letter on November 23, 2016, that since compensation was never withdrawn or received directly by them, and no notice under Section 16(2)(a) was served, the occasion to deposit 65% had not arisen. Receiving no further resolution, they filed this Writ Petition.

3. Contentions of the Parties

• Petitioners’ Contentions:
  1. The Petitioners are recognized Project Affected Persons (PAPs) as reflected in the State’s Sankalan Register.
  2. Under Section 16(2) of the PAP Act, the 45-day period and requirement to deposit 65% compensation or communicate willingness arises only after a statutory notice under Section 16(2)(a) is issued and served by the Collector.
  3. Since no notice was served and compensation remains deposited in the District Court, the 65% share can be deducted directly from the Court deposit, with the balance compensation paid to them along with the allotment of alternate land.
• Respondents’ Contentions (State):
  1. Under Section 16(1) of the PAP Act, an application for alternate land requires depositing 65% of the compensation.
  2. Non-deposit of the 65% amount rendered the Petitioners ineligible to be treated as Project Affected Persons for land allotment.
  3. Relied on Maruti Ganu Supnekar v. State of Maharashtra, arguing that notice under Section 16(2) is dependent on the application under Section 16(1).

4. Key Legal Issues

1. Whether non-deposit of 65% of compensation results in forfeiture of the right to get alternate land under Section 16(2) of the PAP Act in the absence of a notice issued by the Collector under Section 16(2)(a).
2. Whether the Petitioners forfeited their rights or lost their status as Project Affected Persons when compensation remained deposited with the District Court pending apportionment.

5. Case Laws Discussed

1. State of Maharashtra and Others v. Shantaram B. Nawale, 2013 (6) ALL MR 207.
   • Principles: Forfeiture of entitlement under Section 16(2) carries serious civil consequences. Section 16(2)(a) mandates that the Collector must first issue a notice indicating the grant of land/plot made to the affected person. In the absence of such notice, there is no occasion to treat the person as having waived or forfeited their right. Mere non-deposit of 65% compensation without service of notice under Section 16(2)(a) is insufficient to cause forfeiture.
2. Ram Shankar Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 8385 of 2010 (decided on 2 May 2011 by Bombay HC).
   • Principles: The limitation period specified under Section 16(2) begins to run only after the Collector serves a notice upon the land loser as provided under Section 16(2)(a).
3. Maruti Ganu Supnekar v. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 10346 of 2022 (decided on 8th December 2022 by Bombay HC).
   • Distinguished: In Maruti Ganu Supnekar, the petitioner was inactive for 20 years and declared ineligible in the Sankalan Register. Here, Petitioners repeatedly followed up, were confirmed eligible in the Sankalan Register, and compensation was already deposited with the Court.

6. Observations of the High Court

• Absence of Notice: The Court observed that under Section 16(2)(a) of the PAP Act, forfeiture cannot occur unless a notice is formally served by the Collector. Since no notice was ever served, the 45-day limitation period never commenced.
• No Default in Deposit: The full compensation was already in custody of the District Court pending dispute resolution. Thus, non-deposit of 65% directly to the Collector could not be used as a ground to classify the Petitioners as ineligible.
• Sankalan Register Entries: The Sankalan Register clearly documented the Petitioners as eligible PAPs entitled to 0.40 Ares of land each.

7. Concluding Order / Operative Relief

• The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and made Rule absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (a):
  1. Directed the Respondents to forthwith pay the balance compensation to the Petitioners after deducting the 65% amount from the compensation lying with the District Court.
  2. Directed the Respondent Authorities to forthwith grant alternate land to the Petitioners as per their entitlement in the affected zone of the Megholi Irrigation Project or any other land from the Government land pool.

8. Key Takeaways

✅Mandatory Statutory Notice: Forfeiture of a project affected person’s right to alternate land under Section 16(2) of the PAP Act cannot be invoked unless the Collector strictly serves a formal notice under Section 16(2)(a) first.

✅Limitation Period: The 45-day limitation period for a land loser to communicate willingness or deposit 65% of compensation does not commence until the statutory notice is duly received.

✅Compensation in Judicial Custody: When compensation amounts are deposited in a court of law pending apportionment disputes between co-owners, the failure to deposit 65% directly with the Collector cannot be held against the project affected persons to disqualify them.

✅Evidentiary Value of Sankalan Register: Official state records like the Sankalan Register serve as critical proof of a land loser’s status and entitlement as a project affected person.

🔖Hashtags

#ProjectAffectedPersons #LandAcquisition #LegalCaseStudy #BombayHighCourt #AdministrativeLaw #PropertyRights #RehabilitationAct

📌 Official Copy of judgement 👇