Kamal Khata, J.

1) By this Petition, the Petitioners seek directions to the Respondents to issue Notice under section 16(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (“the Rehabilitation Act”) and to allot the Petitioners land in the beneficial zone of the said irrigation project, upon the Petitioners communicating their willingness and depositing 65% of the amount of compensation received by them.

2) The Petitioners claim to be owners of land bearing Gat No.269 (Survey No.108), admeasuring 0H 27 R, and Survey No.90/7, admeasuring 0H 46.2R, both situated at village Supedhar, Taluka Ambegaon, District Pune. The Petitioners’ lands were acquired vide Awards dated 3rd January, 1972 and 30th March, 1977.

3) Ms. Harpale, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act are applicable to Dimbe Irrigation Project and the Petitioners are therefore entitled to alternate land by way of rehabilitation. According to her, the Project Affected Person (‘PAP’) does not forfeit the right to claim alternate land merely because no Notice under Section 16(2)(a) has been issued. She submitted that upon the issuance of such Notice, the PAP is required to communicate acceptance within 45 days from its receipt and that the fact that, the PAP did not deposit 65% of the compensation amount is immaterial.

She further contended that the Petitioners had made an Application on 26th December, 2022 under Section 16(1) to the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune seeking alternate land by way of rehabilitation. According to her, the Petitioners have not yet received any Notice under Section 16(2).

4) Mr. Kankal, learned AGP for the Respondent-State, invited our attention to the Affidavit in Reply dated 18th March, 2026 filed by Dr. Swapnil B. More, Dy. Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune. He pointed out the statements therein that, the said lands in question were acquired in the years 1972 and 1977 and pursuant thereto the original landowners had accepted the compensation awarded in the acquisition proceedings without any protest.

He submitted that the Petitioners had applied for the first time only on 26th February, 2022, i.e., after a delay of over 45 to 50 years from the dates of acquisition. He relied upon the Judgments rendered in similar Writ Petitions filed by the PAPs, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of India & Ors. vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613, wherein the Apex Court declined to grant relief to a Petitioner who had approached the Court after an inordinate delay from the date of accrual of the cause of action. He, therefore, submitted that the present Petition, being similarly situated, also deserves to be dismissed.

5) We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record.

                   5.1) Admittedly, the Awards are dated 3rd January, 1972 and 30th March, 1977. Pursuant thereto, the original landowners, namely, Shrikrishna Mahadev Kokane and Chandrakant Mahadev Kokane, accepted the compensation awarded without any protest.

6) It is an admitted position that no Application was ever never made by the original landowners. After a lapse of over 45 to 50 years, the present Petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased landowners, for the first time, on 26th February 2022, asserted a claim of entitlement under the Rehabilitation Act.

7) Astonishingly, paragraph No.12 of the Petition baldly asserts that the Petition is within limitation, without furnishing any explanation whatsoever as to how this is so.

8) Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have dismissed similar Petitions on the grounds of delay and latches. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in (i) Shri Babban Shankar Pingale vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2023-BHC-AS:17791-DB dated 28th June, 2023, (ii) Rajaram Savla Mohite Since deceased by His L.Rs. Smt. Parvati Rajaram Mohite vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in BHC-AS:32002-DB dated 19th December, 2022, (iii) Nana Narayan Bhalerao since deceased through his legal heir vs. District Resettlement Officer & Ors. reported in BHCAS: 21548-DB dated 26th July, 2023, (iv) Dnyanu Bhiku Tanpure vs. The Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune & Ors. reported in BHC-AS:22368- DB dated 19th July, 2023 and (v)Yashwant Bhau Sangde vs. The Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) & Ors. reported in BHC-AS:24525-DB dated 23rd August, 2023.

9) Similar to the decision in Dnyanu Bhiku Tanpure (supra) the present Petition also deserves to be dismissed on the grounds that (i) the Rehabilitation Act has no retrospective effect, and (ii) Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 had no provision akin to 16(2)(a) of the Rehabilitation Act.

10) We are in complete agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions. In our considered view, present Petition also deserves to be dismissed on the aforestated two grounds.

11) In our view, the present Petition is clearly hit by gross and inordinate delay and laches and, therefore, cannot be entertained.

12) Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.