Bombay High Court
Manoj Ramkrishna Sahakate vs The Collector Nagpur And Others on 16 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp1531.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1531 OF 2015.
Manoj Ramkrishna Sahakate,
Aged 30 years, Occupation -
Nil, r/o. Plot no.77, New
Kailashnagar, Manewada Road,
Nagpur.
ig ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The Collector, Nagpur,
District Nagpur.
2. The Deputy Collector,
(Land Acquisition Officer)
Nagpur, District Nagpur.
3. The Deputy Collector,
(Rehabilitation Officer)
Nagpur, District Nagpur.
4. The Divisional Officer,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, Udyog Bhavan, 5th Floor
Civil Lines, Nagpur - 01. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:33:06 :::
Judgment wp1531.15
2
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri P.N. Shende, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.
K.S. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri M.M.
Agnihotri, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Considering the nature of
controversy involved in the matter, and with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal. Rule is thus made returnable forthwith.
2. Petitioner claims a certificate from respondent no.1 as 'Project
Affected Person' in terms of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons
Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1999 Act" for short).
3. According to Shri Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner, the
acquisition of land by respondent no.4 through respondent no.1 is for a project
which falls under Section 1[4][b] of the 1999 Act . As it is for establishment
Judgment wp1531.15
of a Industrial Area, the provisions of Section 11 or Section 13 as such may
not ipso facto apply, however, the fact that the land of petitioner is being
acquired and therefore, he is affected, is not in dispute.
4. He contends that in this situation, merely because there is no
notification issued under Section 11 or Under Section 13, declaring that land
of petitioner falls in affected zone or benefit zone, the certificate cannot be
denied to petitioner.
5. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri
Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 point out that the
acquisition here is in terms of provisions of Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation Act, 1968. The MIDC which has to develop industrial
area has got its own Rules and Policy, which provide for grant of preference to
dependents of persons whose lands are acquired for establishment of an industrial
area. He states that there is no agreement between the State Government
and MIDC as contemplated by Section 1[4][b] of the 1999 Act, and hence,
provisions of 1999 Act are not attracted. Learned A.G.P. also points out
that if the provisions are attracted, a notification that land falls either
under affected zone of then in benefit zone under section 11 or 13 as the
case may be, has to be issued. No such notification has been issued. She
Judgment wp1531.15
invites our attention to later part of the Section 1[4][b] to urge that in such
a situation, the responsibility to rehabilitate the persons whose lands are
acquired rests solely on respondent no.4 and State Government is not
concerned with it.
6. The provisions of 1999 Act vide its Section 1 state that it applies to
all irrigation project if the area of affected zone there in exceeds 50 hectares
or the the area of benefited zone exceeds 200 hectares or a Gauthan is
affected. It is not in dispute that this is not an irrigation project. Sub-clause
[b] however, speaks of all projects. It excludes the irrigation projects which
are specified in Section 1[4][a]. Thus, all projects not covered under
Section 1[4][a] are subjected to arrangement stipulated in Section 1[4][b],
it includes Industrial society also. Therefore, it is apparent that the
acquisition by the respondent no.1 for respondent no.4 MIDC is covered
under Section 1[4][b] of 1999 Act, and it is a project as stipulated therein.
7. The fact that land of petitioner is acquired, is not in dispute. It is
therefore, not relevant to find out whether the land falls under affected zone
or benefit zone. The concepts are relevant when land is acquired for
irrigation project and is actually submerged.Those, whose lands are acquired
and are sub-merged, are required to be rehabilitated and for that certain
Judgment wp1531.15
reservation is provided in benefit zone, therefore, under Section 12 there is a
restriction to transfer of land when project is under construction. Here as
the land of petitioner is acquired for MIDC, it was for the respondents to
point out whether those whose lands were acquired are to be rehabilitated
in adjacent portions and hence, there was a provision of benefit zone.
Admittedly in State of Maharashtra, when lands are acquired for MIDC no
such arrangement for rehabilitation is made in adjacent area, and therefore,
there is no notification declaring lands as falling in benefit zone.
Consequently, one does not get declarations under Section 11 declaring land
to be acquired for MIDC, as falling in affected zone or then under Section
13, as falling in benefit zone.
8. However, petitioner is not concerned with all these niceties. The
moment it is shown that his land is acquired, he is entitled to grant of
certificate as project affected person, and reasons put forth for not issuing
that certificate are irrelevant. Whether there exists agreement between the
State Government and MIDC or whether the responsibility is cast on the
shoulders of MIDC to rehabilitate or to provide employment to petitioner is
again an irrelevant aspect at this stage. Once the petitioner is given a
certificate as Project Affected Person, the petitioner has to apply to the
competent authority for grant of benefit in accordance with law, and at that
juncture all these factors can be looked into.
Judgment wp1531.15
9. In this situation, we allow the Writ Petition by directing the
respondent no.3 to issue to petitioner a certificate as Project Affected Person
within a period of three months from today.
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
