Petitioner challenged rejection of Project Affected Person certificate for acquired land (K.V. sub-station). Court quashed rejection, directing Director to act in line with W.P. No. 2816 of 1997 within 12 weeks.
Quashed the order dated 10th August, 2016; directed the Deputy Collector to pass afresh orders within twelve weeks.
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.
wp12527.17
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12527 OF 2017
Bhausaheb s/o Sahebrao Mane,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o.Kashti, Tq. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Acquisition and Rehabilitation
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 32.
2. The District Collector, Ahmednagar. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr Rahul O. Awasarmal, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent/State;
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
AND
MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.
DATE : 19th NOVEMBER, 2018
ORAL ORDER :
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
2.The petitioner is before this Court
wp12527.17 (2)
challenging the order dated 23rd February, 2017
passed by respondent No.2 – District Collector,
Ahmednagar.
3.On hearing learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner and on perusal of the material
placed on record, the facts giving rise to the
petition can be summarized as follows :
The petitioner is son of Sahebrao Mane.
Sahebrao Rajaram Mane was possessing the property
i.e. land situated in Survey No.576 at village
Kashti, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. The
said land was acquired for 33/11 K.V. Sub Station.
4.Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner invited our attention to the consent
letter. Copy of the same is placed on record.
Perusal of this document shows that the land was
acquired with the consent of the land owner. The
petitioner submitted application to the District
Settlement Office, Ahmednagar with a prayer that
(3)
his son Nikhil Bhausaheb Mane, who is in search of
employment, a certificate of Project Affected
Person in favour of the petitioner be issued.
5.Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner also invited our attention to the
certificate issued by the Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) No.14, Ahmednagar to submit that the
land of Mr. Sahebrao Rajaram Mane to the extent of
1 Hector out of Survey No. 576 was acquired. The
certificate is dated 30th January, 2015 issued by
the office of the Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) No.14, Ahmednagar. Then death
certificate issued by the Village Development
Officer in the name of Sahebrao Rajaram Mane is
also placed on record to submit that Sahebrao
Rajaram Mane expired on 15th January, 2014. Learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
on10thAugust,2016DeputyCollector
(Rehabilitation), Ahmednagar turned down the
request for grant of certificate for project
affected person and the reasons assigned in the
wp12527.17 (4)
order namely; (1) For the said K.V. 35 sub station
center, Rehabilitation Act is not applicable, (2)
K.V. sub station is not an independent energy
project and the authority can issue certificate
only when land is acquired for an independent
energy project. The third ground is re-iteration of
first ground.
6.The petitioner being aggrieved by this
order approached first appellate authority –
Additional Collector, Ahmednagar taking recourse to
the Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act, 2015
and the first appellate authority, by order dated
2nd January, 2017 dismissed the appeal. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
preferred second appeal before second appellate
authority – District Collector, Ahmednagar. By
order dated 23rdFebruary, 2017 the second
appellate authority dismissed the second appeal.
7.Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that though both the appellate
wp12527.17 (5)
authorities were apprised of decision of this Court
in Writ Petition No. 2816 of 1997 and by inviting
our attention to the copy of said order submitted
that in identical circumstances, the petitioner in
Writ Petition No. 2816 of 1997 approached this
Court and the Division Bench of this Court
considering the provisions of the Project Affected
Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 and more
particularly the definition of 'Project' under
Section 2(1)(b) thereof found that the order
impugned is unsustainable. He then submitted that
the first appellate authority on erroneous reading
of the facts dismissed the appeal. The first
appellate authority relying upon certain Government
circulars gave go bye to the observations of the
Division Bench. The second appellate authority-
District Collector, Ahmednagar also committed the
very error. Learned Counsel then submitted that
both these authorities only on a technical reading
of the provisions of Maharashtra Right of Public
Services Act, 2015 dismissed the appeals, as such,
the orders passed by the first appellate authority
wp12527.17
(6)
as well as second appellate authority be quashed
and set aside.
8.Per contra, Mr. Dande, learned A.G.P.
submitted that the petitioner has not raised
challenge to the order passed by the Deputy
Collector (Rehabilitation), Ahmednagar dated 10th
August, 2016 but the petitioner approached the
appellate authorities taking recourse to the
provisions of Maharashtra Right to Public Services
Act, 2015. As the authorities were called upon to
pass orders in these two appeals, the authorities
committed no error in observing that under the
provisions of Maharashtra Right to Public Services
Act, 2015, the authorities were unable to decide
the issue of grant of certificate namely Project
Affected Person's certificate. Thus, learned A.G.P.
supports the orders passed by the appellate
authorities.
9. Considering these rival submissions, in
our opinion, ends of justice would be met by
wp12527.17 (7)
quashing and setting aside the order passed by the
Deputy Collector (Resettlement), Ahmednagar dated
10thAugust, 2016. The Deputy Collector
(Resettlement), Ahmednagar in the order dated 10th
August, 2016 failed to take into consideration the
judicial pronouncement of this Court by way of
order dated 20th August, 1987 in Writ Petition
No.2816 of 1997. The petitioner was justified in
placing heavy reliance on the order of this Court
dated 20th August, 1997 and was also justified in
submitting that the petitioner is similarly
circumstanced with the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.2816 of 1997.
10.In view of these facts, we set aside the
order dated 10th August, 2016 passed by the Deputy
Collector (Resettlement), Ahmednagar and direct the
Deputy Collector (Resettlement), Ahmednagar to
pass orders afresh on the application of the
petitioner dated 29th June, 2016 on the backdrop of
order of the Division Bench of this Court dated
20th August, 1997 in Writ Petition No. 2816 of
wp12527.17 (8)
1997. This exercise of passing orders afresh be
undertaken and be concluded within twelve weeks
from the date of this order.
11.With this direction, the petition is
disposed of.
( MANGESH S. PATIL )(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tupe
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower authorities correctly dismissed the petition based on the applicability of the Rehabilitation Act for a K.V. sub-station project.
Whether the High Court Division Bench order in Writ Petition No. 2816 of 1997 should be applicable to the petitioner's case.
Whether to quash the impugned orders of the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) and direct fresh consideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
referenced hereinFollowed¶36
Writ Petition No. 2816 of 1997
referenced hereinFollowed¶54
Writ Petition No. 2816 of 1997
Bhausaheb s/o Sahebrao Mane
The State of Maharashtra
The District Collector, Ahmednagar
PRASANNA B. VARALE
MANGESH S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court