Bandeppa Mallikarjun Kante vs The State Of Maharashtr And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 7502 Bom

                                            1           48-wp10054.odt


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                            
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 10054 OF 2016




                                                    
                      BANDEPPA MALLIKARJUN KANTE
                                VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTR AND OTHERS




                                                   
                            --
    Mr.R.R.Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner
    Mr.S.J.Salgare, AGP for respondents 
                            --




                                           
                                ig   CORAM :  R.M. BORDE AND
                                              SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

With consent of the parties, the petition is taken

up for final disposal at the admission stage.

3. The application tendered by the

petitioner for issuance of certificate certifying

that the petitioner is a project affected person,

has been turned down by respondent no.4 - Deputy

Collector, Rehabilitation, Latur vide the impugned

order dated 02.09.2014.

2 48-wp10054.odt

4. Respondent no.4 has communicated the

petitioner that since the property belonging to

the petitioner has been acquired for the purpose

of establishing Industrial Training Institute, the

application of the petitioner cannot be considered

in view of the Government Resolution dated

01.01.1980.

5.

The petitioner has invited our attention

to the definition of "project" incorporated in

the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons

Rehabilitation Act, 1999 ("the Act", for short).

Section 2(10)(f) of the Act defines "project" as

"an university project, that is to say, setting up

of any university or any teaching, training

institution."

6. In view of above, the acquisition of the

property belonging to the petitioner for

establishing the Industrial Training Institute,

shall have to be considered to have been acquired

for setting up a project within the meaning of the

3 48-wp10054.odt

provisions of the Act. The decision rendered by

respondent no.4 rejecting the application of the

petitioner taking recourse to the Government

Resolution dated 01.01.1980 is erroneous and

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. In the circumstances, the impugned order

passed by respondent no.4 rejecting the

application of the petitioner for issuance of

certificate that the petitioner is a project

affected person, is quashed and set aside.

Respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to reconsider

the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the

policy of the State Government and communicate the

decision to the petitioner, as expeditiously as

possible and preferably, within a period of three

months from today.

8. Rule made absolute accordingly. There

shall be no order as to costs.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.] kbp