1 1) WP 5528-22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5528 OF 2022 BRAMHANAND SADASHIV BAGADE (DEAD) THR. LEGAL HEIR MEERA WD/O. BRAMHANAND BAGADE AND ORS. VS THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S.I.Ghatte, Advocate for petitioner(s). Ms. M.H.Deshmukh, AGP for respondent/State. CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : 07/09/2026 Heard. 2. Denial of benefit of rehabilitation package under Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 03/11/2012, is a subject matter of this Writ Petition. 3. The brief facts of the present case are as under:- The petitioner claims to be a resident of village Rantalodhi. The said village was declared as an affected village zone under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, vide Notification dated 29th October, 2018. The project for which the said village was declared as affected was the project, namely expansion of the Core Forest for Tiger Conservation at Tadoba Andhari Tiger Project. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has his house property in the said village. The entire village was rehabilitated as village Salori Parsodia, Taluka Warora, District Chandrapur. 2026:BHC-NAG:11981-DB 2 1) WP 5528-22.odt 5. The petitioner, being an affected person, opted in favor of rehabilitation at new place. Along with the petitioner, 145 other families had also opted for rehabilitation at new place. 6. As per the G.R. dated 03/11/2012 and the scheme promulgated for rehabilitation, petitioner submitted his documents, namely, the voting card, ration card and a tax receipt issued by Gram Panchayat in respect of his house property at Rantalodhi. The petitioner also submitted additional documents in respect of his dependents, namely his wife and three children, so also his brother, demonstrating their proof of residence of the said village. 7. However, the petitioner was found ineligible on account of his name appearing in the voter list of village Warora. Thereafter, the petitioner sought correction in the voter list and it was then duly rectified. 8. In the meantime, further Notification of enhancement of one-time rehabilitation compensation was announced by the National Tiger Conservation Authority. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No. 2-Committee published a fresh list of families who were found eligible for the rehabilitation at new place. In the said list, the name of the petitioner appeared at Sr. Nos. 20 & 21, and in the remark column, it was observed that the petitioner was ineligible on the aforementioned ground, as his name was in the voter list of Warora. Thereafter, the petitioner made 3 1) WP 5528-22.odt representations, however, there is no reply on the same from the respondent authority. Hence this petition. 9. Shri Ghatte, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that as per the G.R. dated 03/11/2012, the documents which were required to be submitted to claim the option for rehabilitation at new place, namely, the tax receipt, voting card and ration card, were submitted. It is submitted that, relying upon the voter list, the claim of the petitioner was denied. It is argued that when the necessary documents, which were required to be submitted to claim the option for rehabilitation at new place, were filed, and once it was established by the petitioner that he is a resident of the aforementioned village on the basis of the documents referred to in Government Resolution dated 03/11/2012, denial of such claim on an erroneous ground is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Deshmukh, the learned AGP has pointed out that the petitioner was serving as a teacher at Warora, and the distance between village Rantalodhi and Warora is more than 50 km. She submits that the fact that the petitioner was in service at the relevant time and was working in a school is sufficient to deny the option for rehabilitation at a new place chosen by the petitioner, and such denial is justifiable. 11. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the 4 1) WP 5528-22.odt Government issued a G.R. dated 03/11/2012 promulgating the scheme for rehabilitation for the affected families by the projects relating to National Wildlife Sanctuary or Tiger project or any project of forest. 12. The project in respect of which village Rantalodhi was declared as an affected village was the project, namely expansion of the Core Forest for Tiger Conservation at the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Project. 13. Under the said scheme, two options were available for the affected families. One was to receive Rs. 10 Lakh and the second was for rehabilitation at new place. 14. The petitioner opted for the latter one i.e. for rehabilitation at new place. The documents as per Clause 14 of the said G.R. require was Form 8-A registration issued by the Gram Panchayat, or a ration card, or an election card. 15. The petitioner accordingly submitted the Form 8-A Certificate along with the voting card and ration card to establish the fact that he was a resident of the said village. 16. However, his claim was denied on the ground that his name was found in the voter list of town Warora. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner was serving in Warora as a Teacher. Though, there is no dispute that there was a residential house of the petitioner in village Rantalodhi, the question involved in the present petition is whether merely 5 1) WP 5528-22.odt having a house in the affected village is sufficient to claim the benefit of rehabilitation at new place. 18. There is a restriction in claiming rehabilitation at new place in Clause 15 of the said G.R., which says that if the affected family is not a resident of the said village but only land or other property is there in the name of affected family, such family will be entitled for the compensation to the extent of the value of the property and Rs. 10 lakh in cash. 19. Thus, Clause 15 has made the petitioner disentitled to claim rehabilitation at new place. Though the petitioner has established, by filing the documents on record, the fact that his residential house is at Rantalodhi, however, because he was serving at Warora at the relevant time and his name was included in the voter list at Warora, it is sufficient to say that the petitioner was residing at Warora, though he was having a house property at village Rantalodhi. 20. Thus, in view of Clause 15, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation towards his house property and, in addition to the same, Rs. 10 lakh. However, the petitioner is not entitled for rehabilitation at new place. 21. In the circumstances, merely because the petitioner subsequently got his name deleted from the voter list of Warora will not make him entitled for rehabilitation at new place. In that view of the matter, as there is no error 6 1) WP 5528-22.odt committed by the respondent authorities in denying such benefit, the petition is dismissed. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) B.T.K. Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2026 18:51:44