The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the communication dated 27.03.2019 issued by the Deputy Collector, Nagpur canceling the project-affected person certificate issued to the petitioner.
The Court observed that the impugned communication deprives the petitioner of the project-affected person certificate and hence it was necessary for the Deputy Collector to have first heard the petitioner and after granting the opportunity to him ought to have taken a decision in that regard.
Brief Facts:
It is the case of the petitioner that his father, his mother, and he were the owners of three different lands land bearing different Survey numbers. These lands came to be acquired by the National Thermal Power Corporation-respondent no.1 by virtue of the award dated 20.09.2010. The parents of the petitioner together received an amount of Rs. Five lakhs in terms of Clause 5 of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2007 that came to be executed on 05.04.2013 between the Government of Maharashtra and respondent no.1.
The petitioner as the son claims employment in terms of Clause 3 of the said Policy. The Deputy Collector by the impugned communication dated 27.03.2019 has cancelled the project affected person certificate that was issued to the petitioner on the ground that his parents have received compensation of Rs. Five lakhs towards such acquisition. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid communication has been challenged.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the aforesaid communication was issued without granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. His explanation was not called for before such action was taken. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the provisions of Section 6(c) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 to contend that as per the explanation thereto, he was residing separately from his parents and was thus entitled to employment.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the said land came to be purchased in the name of the petitioner in 2003 when he was a minor. The parents of the petitioner having received the amount of Rs. Five lakhs, the petitioner would not be entitled to any employment under the said Policy.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the project affected persons certificate that was earlier issued to the petitioner came to be cancelled on 27.03.2019 but without granting any opportunity to the petitioner or putting him on notice that it was proposed to cancel the said certificate. The reason stated in the said communication is that his parents have received compensation of Rs. Five lakhs, the petitioner would not be entitled to employment.
The Court observed that the impugned communication deprives the petitioner of the project affected persons certificate and hence it was necessary for the Deputy Collector to have first heard the petitioner and after granting opportunity to him ought to have taken a decision in that regard. Since the impugned communication has been issued in breach of the principles of natural justice, it is liable to be set aside.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the communication dated 27.03.2019 issued by the Deputy Collector is set aside, and the project-affected person certificate issued to the petitioner shall stand restored.
Case Title: Pritam Murlidhar Ughade vs NTPC Limited & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Hon’ble Justice Vrushali V. Joshi
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 6490 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Alok Daga
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. N. R. Rode, and Mr. S. A. Ashirgade
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
