Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Suresh Ramchandra Pawar Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Bombay HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

Home
Bombay HC
2010
Suresh Ramchandra Pawar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.Suresh Ramchandra Pawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Allowed

Suresh Ramchandra Pawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2010WP/3072/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ under Article 226 directing the District Rehabilitation Officer to decide and communicate a pending application for a project affected person certificate regarding land acquired for a village tank. The Court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Application to decide the petitioner's pending application for project affected person certificate must be resolved and communicated within two months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application to decide the petitioner's pending application for project affected person certificate must be resolved and communicated within two months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court ought to issue a writ directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending application for a project affected person certificate. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court allowed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had applied for a certificate declaring him a project affected person after the acquisition of his land for a village tank. The application had remained pending. The Court directed the respondents to decide the application within two months and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.3072 OF 2010

Suresh s/o Ramchandra Pawar, Age : 42 years, Occ. Agril., R/o Matkuli, Tq. Ashti, District Beed ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

The Collector, Beed, District Beed

The District Rehabilitation Officer, Beed, Dist. Beed ..RESPONDENTS

Mr D.R. Jayabhar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for respondents

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND

S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ

DATE : 20th April, 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ]

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent no. 3 to issue necessary certificate to the petitioner as belonging to project affected persons category.

It appears that an application came to be submitted on 18.1.2010 praying therein for issuance of the aforesaid certificate. According to the petitioner, the said application has remained pending and has not been decided. The petitioner claims to be a project affected person as the land of the petitioner came to be acquired by the respondents for construction of a village tank.

In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner, if the same is pending, within two months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs.

( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE

amj/wp3072.10

3

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the High Court ought to issue a writ directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending application for a project affected person certificate.
2.
Whether the decision of the petitioner's application must be communicated to him.

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Suresh s/o Ramchandra Pawar
respondent
State of Maharashtra
respondent
Collector, Beed
respondent
District Rehabilitation Officer, Beed

Coram

AI extract

P.V. Hardas
S.V. Gangapurwala

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 20 Apr 2010 · April
Registered: 6 Apr 2010
Case no.: WP/3072/2010
CNR: HCBM030047702010
Bench: S V Gangapurwala P.v.hardas
Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from S V Gangapurwala P.v.hardas

Girish Sueshrao Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
19 Apr 2010
Sachin Gurunath Salunke Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
19 Apr 2010
The Registrar , Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani. Vs Sachin Gurunath Salunke and Ors.
19 Apr 2010
Amatur Rahman Abdul Majid Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
20 Apr 2010
Umesh Govindrao Machkure Vs the State of Mah and Ors.
20 Apr 2010
Laxman Kashinath Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah and Ors.
20 Apr 2010

Cite this judgement

Suresh Ramchandra Pawar v. the State of Mah and Ors., WP/3072/2010 (BOM), decided on 20 April 2010.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

P.V. Hardas and S.V. Gangapurwala

Parties & counsel