The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Maharashtra government for not filing its response to the construction of buildings in forest land and compensation to the affected private party.
The court also said the Maharashtra government has funds for distributing freebies under 'Ladli Behna' and 'Ladka Bhau' schemes but not for paying money for the loss of land.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, K V Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta gave time to the state government till August 13 to file its response saying if the order is not complied with, the chief secretary shall be present in the court.
The top court was hearing a matter related to the construction of buildings in forest land in Maharashtra, where a private party has succeeded in the top court to get possession of the land which was "illegally occupied" by the state government.
The state government has claimed that the said piece of land was occupied by Armament Research Development Establishment Institute (ARDEI), which was a unit of the Centre's defence department.
The government said subsequently another piece of land was allotted to the private party in lieu of the piece of land, which was in the possession of ARDEI.
However, later it was found that the land allotted to the private party was notified as forest land.
"In terms of our order dated July 23, we have directed you (state government) to clear your stand on the ownership of land on affidavit. If you will not file your reply, we will ask your chief secretary to be present here next time… You have funds for distributing freebies under 'Ladli Behna' and 'Ladka Bhau' but not for paying money for loss of land," the bench said.
Under 'Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana' announced by the state government earlier this year, Rs 1,500 is slated to be transferred into the bank accounts of eligible women in the age group of 21 to 65 years whose family income was less than Rs 2.5 lakh.
Similarly, under the 'Ladka Bhau Yojana' announced by the state government, the scheme's primary goal is to provide financial assistance and practical work experience to young men.
Warning the counsel appearing for the state government to not take the court for granted, the bench said the state government should not take every order of the court in a casual manner.
The bench asked the state government to clear the stand in terms of the questions asked in the last order on compensating the private party over loss of land.
In its July 23 order, the bench had noted that the private party, who has succeeded up to this court, cannot be denied the benefits of the decree passed in their favour.
"Firstly, the action of the state government in encroaching upon the land of a citizen was itself illegal. Secondly, the state government ought to have taken due precaution before allotting a piece of land.
"A land which is notified as forest land could not have been allotted. The state ought to have allotted a land, which has clear title and also the land which has a marketable value," it had said.
Noting that the matter has been pending for almost 15 years, the bench said the state government has not yet come up with a concrete proposal.
The bench had asked the state government to file its reply and clear its stand on three questions, whether another piece of equivalent land will be offered to the petitioner(s) (private party), whether adequate compensation would be paid to the petitioner(s) and whether the state government proposes to move the central government for denotification of the said land as forest land.
It had asked the state government to file its reply in two weeks and said, "we clarify that if we find that the state government does not come with a clear stand, we would be compelled to direct the personal presence of the chief secretary of the state".
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
