J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 1/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3169 OF 2025 Punarvasan Pili Committee, thr. its members namely 1. Dashrath s/o Ram Chimote Aged about 34 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, 2. Harikishor s/o Sonaji Kasdekar Aged about 48 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, 3. Gorelal s/o Babulal Dhikar Aged about 47 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, 4. Raju s/o Zhhannu Jamunkar Aged about 55 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, 5. Kunwarlal s/o Hira Shelukar Aged about 52 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, 6. Shankar Babulal Chimote Aged about 34 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, 7. Suresh s/o Gangaram Dhikar Aged about 47 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, 8. Ramprasad s/o Bajilal Kasdekar Aged about 45 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, 9. Meshram s/o Laxman Chimote Aged about 38 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, 10. Shobhelal s/o Motiram Dhikar Aged about 50 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, All R/o at Rehabilated village Pili, Tq. Chandur Bazar, Dist. Amravati ...PETITIONERS 2026:BHC-NAG:11980-DB J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 2/11 VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 2. Chief Conservator of Forest and Regional Director, Melghat Tiger Project, office at Camp, Amravati 3. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Melghat Tiger Project, Sipna Wildlife Department, Paratwada, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati 5. District Rehabilitation Committee, Amravati, through its Chairman / Collector, Amravati office at Camp, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati 6. Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati ...RESPONDENTS _______________________________________________________ Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate a/w Mr. R.R. Karle, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.P. Thakare, Addl.G.P. for the State. _______________________________________________________ CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND R AJNISH R. VYAS , JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 8, 2026. J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 3/11 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J.) : RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner is the committee constituted for rehabilitation of the affected persons of village Pili, Taluka Chikhaldara, District Amravati. The lands of the affected persons of village Pili were acquired for extension of Melghat Tiger Project. 3. The notification to the said effect under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as “the said Act”) was issued by respondent No.4 on 20/12/2018, more particularly under Section 11 of the said Act. 4. The Government Resolution dated 03/11/2012 issued by the Revenue and Forest department, State of Maharashtra, in relation to the guidelines for rehabilitation and relocation of the families affected by projects relating to the National Wildlife Sanctuaries, tiger projects and other forest projects. J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 4/11 5. Under the said Government resolution, two options were provided to the affected persons. The first option was to claim Rs.10,00,000 instead of rehabilitation at new place. This option of paying Rs.10,00,000/- in cash was also for rehabilitation; however, such rehabilitation was to be carried out by the project affected persons on their own, whereas under the second option, the Government was responsible for rehabilitation. 6. The petitioners opted for the first option, i.e., to accept Rs.10,00,000/- for rehabilitation on their own. The petitioners were paid the said amount on three different occassions; initially Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of the consent letter, Rs.1,31,873/- at the time of purchase of land at the place of rehabilitation i.e. Tonglapur and Rs.2,68,178/- for village Tonglapur and Rs. 2,67,706/- for village Maujkheda at the time of issuance of the letter dated 05/02/2021. It is to be noted that the amount provided to the petitioners for the purchase of land at mouza Maujkheda was to the tune of Rs.1,32,394/-. J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 5/11 7. Subsequent to the aforementioned Government Resolution dated 03/11/2012, a revised Government Resolution was issued on 12/10/2015. This revision was made by the Government in view of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 2013”). This revised Government Resolution declared that the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013 will apply to all project affected persons who opted for option 1 and option 2, meaning thereby provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013 were made applicable to the petitioners herein. 8. Thereafter, another Government Resolution was issued on 06/03/2019 whereby Clause No.13(b) of the Government Resolution 03/11/2012 in relation to option No.1 came to be relaxed, and it was resolved that the amount deducted from Rs.10,00,000/- towards the cost of the land and basic facilities for rehabilitation shall be returned back to the project affected persons. 9. Thus, in view of this Government Resolution dated 06/03/2019, the petitioners are claiming the return of the amount J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 6/11 deducted by the State Government towards the purchase of land. The petitioners who are residents of Maujkheda are claiming the return of an amount to the tune of Rs.1,32,294/-, whereas the petitioners who are residents of Tonglapur are claiming return of an amount to the tune of Rs.1,31,873/-. 10. Since the requests from the petitioners were denied by the respondents, the petitioners approached to this Court by way of the present writ petition claiming the said amounts. 11. The State Government, in its reply, has not denied any of the facts stated hereinabove. However, the denial to return back the amount as claimed by the petitioners is solely on the ground that the amount was deducted at the request of the petitioners, and since the request was voluntary, the petitioners are not entitled to receive back the said amount. The statement of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Melghat Tiger Project, Sipna Wildlife Division, Paratwada on affidavit dated 12/06/2026 is as follows: “3. I humbly submit that, the office of the answering respondent, vide its letter dated 20.04.2026, deposited an amount of Rs. 7,43,000/- J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 7/11 in the account of the petitioner by R.T.G.S. through the Bank of Baroda, Paratwada, Dist. Amravati. I humbly submit that the statement also showing payment to the petitioners committee is annexed here and marked as Annexure-26 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” 12. Thus, the only question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioners can be denied the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 12/10/2015 whereby the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013 were made applicable and further the benefit of relaxation of clause 13(b) of the Government Resolution dated 03/11/2012 vide Government Resolution dated 06/03/2019. 13. To answer the above referred question, the reply of the Forest Department is invoked. The respondent/State is not denying the applicability of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013 to the petitioners, nor the relaxation of clause 13(b) of Government Resolution dated 03/11/2012. 14. Once the provisions of Section 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013 are made applicable to the petitioners, and further as clause J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 8/11 13(b) of the Government Resolution dated 03/11/2012 has been relaxed by the Government and it was decided to return back the amount deducted towards the cost of the land and basic facilities for the rehabilitation, the denial to return the deducted amount to the petitioners to the extent permitted by the Government Resolution dated 06/03/2019 is arbitrary and impermissible. 15. The request of the petitioners to deduct the amount for the purchase of land was made on 04/01/2021, on which the respondents acted upon and deducted the amount. Admittedly, the petitioners are tribals. After the Government Resolution dated 06/03/2019, the officers of the Forest Department ought to have denied such requests made by the petitioners by pointing out that there is no need to deduct the amount for the purchase of land after the Government Resolution dated 06/03/2019, and after making the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013 applicable to the petitioners. Without informing to the petitioners about the provisions of Government Resolution dated 06/03/2019 and their rights under Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013, the deduction of the amount by the respondent-authorities is nothing but taking away their rights J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 9/11 under the statute as well as under the Government Resolution dated 06/03/2019. 16. As observed in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. reported in [(1993) 3 SCC 499] while explaining the concept of legitimate expectation, the court has observed that it is one of the principles developed by the courts for reviewing administrative action, alongside the principles of natural justice, unreasonableness, the fiduciary duty of public authorities and, potentially, proportionality. As observed by H.W.R. Wade in Administrative Law, the courts now expect Government departments to act consistently with their published statements or, at the least, to give the affected citizen full and fair consideration. Unfairness arising from unreasonableness may, in appropriate cases, overlap with a violation of natural justice, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation may operate in both situations. The principle of substantive fairness may also affect the application of established rules relating to estoppel and misleading advice. As recognised by Lord Scarman, unfairness in the exercise of a statutory power may amount to an abuse or excess of J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 10/11 that power. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has, therefore, developed into an important principle governing the fairness of administrative action. 17. Thus, it is evident that the respondent-authorities are at fault. Firstly, not informing to the petitioners that there is no need to deduct the amount for the purchase of land as the Government has to purchase such land for the petitioners and after claiming of such amount back by the petitioners it is further arbitrary on the part of the respondent-authorities to deny refund of such amount. It is expected that in such matters where tribals are involved and if they are not aware of certain Government Resolutions and provisions, the authorities shall disclose all the rights and act fairly. However, it is evident that in this matter, the authorities acted in a most unfair manner, and when it was requested to refund back the amount, it was denied on frivolous ground that the petitioners had voluntarily requested for deduction of amount. 18. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the present petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following order: J.901.wp.3169.25.odt 11/11 (a) The writ petition is allowed. (b) The amounts deducted to the tune of Rs.1,31,873/- at the time of purchase of land at a place of rehabilitation i.e. Tonglapur and Rs.1,32,394/- for village Maujkheda at the time of issuance of letter dated 05/02/2021 shall be returned back to the project affected persons of the said village, who opted for option No.1 at the time of acquisition of village Pili. (c) Since we have observed that the authorities acted unfairly and unreasonably in this case, the petitioners are entitled for interest on the amounts deducted by the respondents. (d) The respondent-authorities shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. (e) Interest shall be paid to the petitioners on the amount deducted from the date of deduction till the date of realization of the amount. 19. The writ petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) *Divya Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2026 18:47:09