Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a 92-year-old woman whose land was acquired under the Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary Project, directing the provision of alternate land and accommodation similar to what was provided to other displaced villagers. The Court emphasized that the “single unit” theory, which argued that family members are collectively entitled to only one unit of land, was not supported by law.
Facts
The petitioner sought alternate land following the acquisition of her property, which she inherited upon her husband’s death in 1998. The village, where the petitioner resided for nearly six decades, was relocated due to the Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary Project, but she received no compensation or alternative housing despite her husband’s entitlements being legally transferred to her. The petitioner’s three step-sons received individual plots, while she was excluded from the list of project-affected persons, prompting her to seek legal recourse.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner, as a widow inheriting her husband’s property, is entitled to compensation and alternate land under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
- Whether the “single unit” theory, which treats all family members collectively for rehabilitation, is applicable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that her entitlement to alternate land and rehabilitation stems from inheriting her husband’s property. She contended that the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act allow such inheritance, and her exclusion based on her step-sons’ allotments was legally unsound. She further argued that the “single unit” theory was unfounded, as each step-son received an individual plot while her claim was ignored.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents maintained that the petitioner was not eligible for individual compensation, arguing her name did not appear in official records before the appointed date in 1985 and asserting that her family was entitled to only one unit. They relied on the “single unit” theory, suggesting that because her step-sons had received compensation, she should not be separately accommodated.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the Wildlife (Protection) Act, particularly Sections 18 to 24, which outline the framework for compensating and rehabilitating affected persons. The Act acknowledges the inheritance of rights post-notification, underlining the distinction between inheritance and the acquisition of new rights. The Court found that the petitioner’s inheritance rights, explicitly protected by Section 20, aligned with the legal provisions, contradicting the respondents’ interpretation.
Precedent Analysis
The Court cited established legal principles regarding the rights of inheritors and rehabilitation under land acquisition laws, particularly for sanctuary projects, clarifying that inherited rights cannot be overlooked. This interpretation reinforced that family members should not be grouped as a single unit for the purpose of rehabilitation if individual plots were allocated to others.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court rejected the “single unit” argument, emphasizing that it is unfounded and inconsistent with the respondents’ own actions in granting separate plots to each step-son. It highlighted that since each step-son received individual compensation and rehabilitation, the petitioner, as the deceased husband’s widow and inheritor of his rights, should also receive the same consideration.
Conclusion
The Court directed that a plot measuring 300 sq. ft. with a dwelling unit be allotted to the petitioner in Sangli within 12 weeks, stressing the urgency due to her advanced age. The respondents’ denial based on arbitrary notions of appropriateness was dismissed, establishing that her entitlements as an inheritor are fully enforceable under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
Implications
This judgment underscores the rights of project-affected individuals under land acquisition laws, particularly in wildlife sanctuary projects. It reinforces that legal entitlements under inheritance laws cannot be diluted by administrative policies, especially those lacking statutory backing, like the “single unit” theory. The ruling sets a precedent for ensuring that affected persons are fairly rehabilitated in alignment with legal provisions, regardless of familial relations.
