Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Kundlik s/o Kosru Mate and his son Sharad s/o Kundlik Mate, filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice dated 15.03.2002 issued by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Bhandara. The notice alleged that Sharad, who secured government employment as a project-affected person in 1995, had misrepresented the extent of land left with his family after acquisition. The policy required that if the family retained land of 1 hectare or more, they were not entitled to employment benefits. The respondents claimed that the family owned two lands: Gut No.134 (0.96H) and Gut No.180 (1.94H). After acquisition of 0.59H from Gut No.134, only 0.37H remained from that plot, but Gut No.180 remained intact at 1.98H, making the total holding 2.35H. The show-cause notice alleged that the petitioner suppressed this and also suppressed prior government employment. During hearing, the AGP conceded that the allegation of suppressing prior employment was erroneous and not pressed. The only issue was whether the petitioner misrepresented the land left. The Court examined Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, which provides the norm. The Court noted that the policy only considers land left after acquisition from the acquired land, not other unacquired lands. Since only 0.37H remained from the acquired Gut No.134, the petitioner was eligible. The Court also noted that the respondent no.2 had not passed any order despite directions. The Court quashed the show-cause notice and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as eligible for employment.
Headnote
A) Rehabilitation Law - Project Affected Persons - Eligibility for Employment - Section 2(2)(c)(i) of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 - The issue was whether the petitioner misrepresented the land left with his family as 0.37H when the total holding was 2.35H, including Gut No.180 which was not acquired. The Court held that the policy only considers land left after acquisition, and since only 0.37H remained from the acquired land, the petitioner was eligible. The show-cause notice was quashed. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner can be said to have misrepresented the extent of land left with his family after acquisition, thereby disentitling him to employment as a project-affected person.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The show-cause notice dated 15.03.2002 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as eligible for employment as a project-affected person.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 2(2)(c)(i) of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act
- 1999
- Land measurement for eligibility
- Misrepresentation
- Show-cause notice
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (02) 111
Writ Petition No. 1813/2002
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Mrs. Swapna Joshi
Mr. G.K. Iyer holding for Mr. A.D. Mohogaonkar for petitioners, Mr. Amit Chutke, AGP for respondents
Kundlik s/o Kosru Mate and Sharad s/o Kundlik Mate
The State of Maharashtra and The District Rehabilitation Officer, Bhandara
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging a show-cause notice alleging misrepresentation by a project-affected person to secure government employment.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of show-cause notice dated 15.03.2002 and direction to treat the petitioner as eligible for employment.
Filing Reason
The petitioner no.2 was issued a show-cause notice alleging that he misrepresented the extent of land left with his family after acquisition and suppressed prior employment, thereby fraudulently obtaining employment as a project-affected person.
Previous Decisions
The High Court had stayed the operation of the show-cause notice on 20.06.2002 and continued the stay while admitting the matter. On 10.08.2017, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a reply, and on 06.11.2017, directed the respondent no.2 to hear the petitioner and pass orders by 06.10.2017, but no order was passed.
Issues
Whether the petitioner misrepresented the extent of land left with his family after acquisition, thereby disentitling him to employment as a project-affected person.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that only 0.37H land remained from the acquired Gut No.134, and Gut No.180 was not acquired and should not be considered for eligibility.
Respondents initially alleged suppression of prior employment but later conceded that allegation was erroneous and not pressed. They argued that total family holding including Gut No.180 was 2.35H, exceeding 1H, thus disentitling the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, the eligibility for employment as a project-affected person depends on the land left after acquisition from the acquired land, not the total family holding including unacquired lands. Since only 0.37H remained from the acquired land, the petitioner was eligible.
Judgment Excerpts
The only question before this Court is, whether petitioner can be said to have misrepresented by pointing that land left with him was only 0.37 H and therefore less than 1H.
If both the lands are taken together, with joint family, the total holding is 2.35 H.
The policy only considers land left after acquisition from the acquired land, not other unacquired lands.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2002 challenging a show-cause notice dated 15.03.2002. The High Court stayed the notice on 20.06.2002 and admitted the matter. On 10.08.2017, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a reply. On 06.11.2017, the Court directed the respondent no.2 to hear the petitioner and pass orders by 06.10.2017, but no order was passed. The petition was finally heard on 08.02.2018 and allowed.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999: Section 2(2)(c)(i)
