Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Issuance of Project Affected Person Certificate to Senior Citizen. Petitioner's land acquired for irrigation project in 1970s; court directs respondent to decide representation within 8 weeks.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Subhash S/o Eknath Nafade, a 73-year-old senior citizen, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2, the District Collector and Administrator, Rehabilitation, Jalgaon, to issue a Project Affected Person Certificate. The petitioner's land was acquired in the 1970s for an irrigation project. He claimed that despite the acquisition, he had not been issued the certificate, which is necessary for availing rehabilitation benefits. The petitioner had made a representation to the respondent, but no decision was taken. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the petitioner is a senior citizen and his claim for the certificate should be considered. The court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim and left it to the respondent to decide in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Project Affected Person Certificate - Entitlement - Petitioner's land was acquired for an irrigation project in 1970s; he sought issuance of Project Affected Person Certificate for rehabilitation benefits - Court held that the petitioner is entitled to consideration of his claim and directed the respondent to decide his representation within 8 weeks - Held that the authority must consider the claim on merits without being influenced by delay (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Project Affected Person Certificate and consequential benefits despite the passage of time since acquisition.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in those terms.

Law Points

  • Project Affected Person Certificate
  • Land Acquisition
  • Rehabilitation
  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Limitation for claiming benefits
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (06) 13

Writ Petition No.6251 of 2022

2022-06-23

Ravindra V. Ghuge, Anil L. Pansare

S. V. Dixit, S. G. Karlekar

Subhash S/o. Eknath Nafade

The State of Maharashtra, District Collector and Administrator, Rehabilitation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking issuance of Project Affected Person Certificate.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to issue Project Affected Person Certificate.

Filing Reason

Petitioner's land was acquired for an irrigation project in the 1970s, but he has not been issued the Project Affected Person Certificate.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Project Affected Person Certificate and consequential benefits despite the passage of time since acquisition.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner's land was acquired for an irrigation project and he is entitled to the certificate. Respondent's counsel opposed the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the petitioner, being a senior citizen, should have his representation for issuance of Project Affected Person Certificate considered by the respondent within a reasonable time. The court did not decide the merits of the claim.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner, a 73 years old senior citizen, has put forth prayer Clause 'A' as under:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. The writ petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6251 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. The court issued rule and heard the matter finally with consent of parties. The petition was disposed of on 23 June 2022.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Labour Court Order for Retrenchment Compensation Under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Employer Liable Despite Nationalization and Transfer of Undertaking.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Directs Caste Scrutiny Committee to Decide Caste Claim Within Six Months and Protects Petitioner's Services. The court ordered that the petitioner's services be protected pending the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee on his c...