Inordinate delay and non-retrospectivity of the 1999 Rehabilitation Act bar stale land allotment claims.

The Petitioners are legal heirs of original landowners whose lands (Gat No. 269 and Survey No. 90/7 at village Supedhar, Pune) were acquired for the Dimbe Irrigation Project via Awards dated January 3, 1972, and March 30, 1977

The original landowners accepted the awarded compensation without protest at the time of acquisition

For the first time on February 26, 2022—approximately 45 to 50 years after the acquisition—the Petitioners applied for alternate land by way of rehabilitation under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (“the Rehabilitation Act”)

The Petitioners sought directions for the issuance of notice under Section 16(2)(a) of the Rehabilitation Act, contending that the right to claim land is not forfeited by the mere non-issuance of such notice

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to alternate land under the Rehabilitation Act after a delay of over 45 to 50 years from the date of acquisition

2. Whether the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, applies retrospectively to acquisitions concluded in 1972 and 1977

The Court primarily applied the principles of "delay and laches" as established by the Supreme Court in Government of India & Ors. v. P. Venkatesh (2019) 15 SCC 613, which precludes relief for causes of action pursued after inordinate delays

The Court further applied the statutory interpretation that the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, does not have retrospective effect

The Court also noted that the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (the law preceding the 1999 Act), contained no provision equivalent to Section 16(2)(a) regarding mandatory notice for alternate land

The Court observed that the original landowners accepted compensation without protest in the 1970s and never applied for rehabilitation during their lifetimes

The current Petitioners, as legal heirs, failed to provide any explanation for the five-decade delay in asserting their claim, rendering the petition hit by gross and inordinate laches

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the 1999 Act cannot be invoked for acquisitions finalized in 1972 and 1977 because the Act is not retrospective

The Court relied on several coordinate bench precedents (e.g., Dnyanu Bhiku Tanpure v. The Deputy Collector) which dismissed similar claims on the grounds that the 1976 Act did not grant the specific rights claimed under the 1999 Act

Therefore, the legal framework existing at the time of acquisition did not support the Petitioners' current demands, and the passage of 50 years barred equitable relief

It held that the Rehabilitation Act of 1999 cannot be applied retrospectively to acquisitions concluded in the 1970s and that a claim for rehabilitation made after a lapse of 45–50 years is barred by gross delay and laches

No relief was granted to the Petitioners