Shankar Tukaram Eppar vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Rehabilitation Dept., Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shankar Tukaram Eppar vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Rehabilitation Dept., Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on the petition — the writ petition was dismissed; liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025, to be decided by respondent No.3 within eight weeks of submission.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3 lawfully rejected the petitioner's application for a Project Affected Person certificate in the name of his grandson Ramprasad, given that only 0.18 R of land was acquired, below the minimum of 20 R prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010. +1 more

Court's answer

As the petitioner did not challenge the Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010, which prescribed a minimum acquired-land extent of 20 R for issuance of a Project Affected Person certificate, respondent No.3 committed no illegality in rejecting the application, the land acquired being only 0.18 R.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's application had to be, and was, decided in accordance with the policy prevailing at the relevant time; the Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025, which came into force after the impugned decision, does not govern the application dated 30.03.2023.

Key takeaways

Noting that the Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025 has superseded the earlier Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application under the 2025 resolution, which respondent No.3 shall decide within eight weeks of its submission.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Division Bench: ANIL S. KILOR and RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.), Writ Petition No.7186 of 2024, decided 24th February 2026 — Project Affected Person (PAP) certificate — Only 0.18 R of the petitioner's land was acquired in 2008 for a Small Irrigation Project, far below the minimum of 20 R prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010, which was in force when the petitioner applied on 30.03.2023 for a PAP certificate in the name of his grandson Ramprasad Dinkar Eppar; respondent No.3 rejected the application by order dated 06.09.2023 — In the absence of any challenge to the Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010, no illegality was committed in rejecting the application — The Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025, which prescribes no minimum acquired-land limit and has superseded the 2010 Resolution, came into force after the impugned decision and cannot be applied retrospectively — Petition dismissed, with liberty to file a fresh application in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025, to be decided by respondent No.3 within eight weeks of submission.

2026:BHC-NAG:3228-DB

912 WP-7186-2024

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.7186 OF 2024

[Shankar Tukaram Eppar ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and Others]

_____________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Shri. S. V. Kuptekar, Advocate for Petitioner (through V. C.) Ms. T. H. Khan, AGP for Respondents/State.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2026.

. Heard.

The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Gat No. 169, admeasuring 8 hectares and 20 R. After partition, land admeasuring 1 hectare 35 R, which came in the share of petitioner, out of which the respondents acquired 0.18 R for Small Irrigation Project in the year 2008.

After the death of petitioner’s son, Dinkar, in the year 2021, the land i.e. 79 R came in the share of petitioner’s grandson and therefore, on 30.03.2023, he applied for issuance of a Project Affected Person certificate in the name of his grandson, Ramprasad Dinkar Eppar. The same was denied by respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 06.09.2023.

The reason for rejection of the petitioner’s request was non-fulfilment of the requirements prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010, which was in force at the relevant time. As per the said Government Resolution, a Project Affected Person certificate can be issued only if a minimum land to the extent of 20 R is acquired acquired for the project.

912 WP-7186-2024

2

Admittedly, in the present case, the land acquired is only

0.18 R and accordingly, the application for issuance of the Project Affected Person certificate was rejected.

In the present petition, there is no challenge to the said Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010 and in absence of any such challenge, there is no illegality committed by the respondent No.3 in rejecting the petitioner’s application, for issuance of the Project Affected Person certificate in the name of his grandson Ramprasad, as the land acquired is below the minimum requirement of 20R.

The learned counsel for petitioner, however, placed much reliance on the Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025, which has come into effect after rejection of the petitioner’s application. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, as per the said Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025, there is no minimum limit prescribed as regards the acquisition of land for issuance of Project Affected Person certificate. It is argued that the earlier Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010 has been superseded by this Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025.

However, the fact remains that the petitioner’s application for issuance of a Project Affected Person certificate was decided in accordance with the policy prevailing at the relevant time. The Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025 came into force subsequent to the impugned decision. Accordingly, as there is no error committed by respondent No.3 in rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 30.03.2023, the present writ petition is dismissed.

912 WP-7186-2024

3

However, considering that the subsequent Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025 has superseded the earlier Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application, if he so desires, in accordance with the policy contained in the Government Resolution dated 29.01.2025. If such an application is submitted to the respondent No.3, the same shall be decided within eight weeks from the date of its submission.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in above referred terms.

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

TAMBE

Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/02/2026 20:54:06