HC upholds individual rehabilitation rights of displaced citizens | Mumbai News

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Friday questioned the state’s ‘single unit’ theory, a legal argument used to deny individual compensation to displaced persons affected by the Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) Project.

In a ruling that could reshape the approach to the right to rehabilitation, the court ordered Maharashtra authorities to provide a 91-year-old woman with an independent plot, finding that displaced citizens are entitled to separate compensation even if they are part of the same family unit.

Dagdabai Vitthal Kadam lived in her house in Zhadoli village, Satara, for over sixty years before it was purchased for the KWS project in 2012. Her three stepsons each received compensation and an alternative plot of land as part of the project’s rehabilitation measures. Kadam was excluded from compensation, with the state arguing that she was part of a ‘single unit’ with her stepsons and therefore indirectly benefited from their compensation.

Kadam’s counsel, Advocate Ketan Shinde, argued that the state’s approach ignored her legal right to compensation and produced documents proving her ownership of the property in the Gram Panchayat since 1998 after her husband’s death. He further argued that the concept of ‘single unit’ was both procedurally unfounded and unfair as her stepsons had been awarded individual compensation unrelated to her property.

The court clarified that under the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WPA), grouping Kadam and her stepsons as a single entity had no legal basis. Her independent ownership of the property, recognized since 1998, should give her the same compensation and rehabilitation rights as any other property owner. It also noted that treating the family as one would contradict the award of individual compensation to each of Kadam’s stepsons.

The court noted that in order to protect persons who acquire property through succession, the WPA also guaranteed Kadam the same rehabilitation as her late husband would have received. The justices criticized the state’s approach of selectively ignoring this provision, which caused undue hardship to the elderly petitioner.