Bombay High Court
Bhanudas Vaijanath Shinde And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 March, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 WP No. 12254/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12254 OF 2015
1) Bhanudas s/o Vaijanath Shinde
Age: 65 Years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o: Dhanora (Bk),
Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
2) Babruwan s/o Bhanudas Shinde,
Age : 33 Years, Occu : Education & Agri,
R/o : Dhanora (Bk), Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur. ig .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Forest and Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The District Collector,
Latur, Dist. Latur.
3) The Deputy Collector
(Project Affected)
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
4) The Tahsildar,
Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District Latur.
5) The Collector,
Through its President,
District Selection Committee
Sangli, Dist. Sangli. .. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Vinayak H. Solanke, Advocate for the Petitioners;
Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
...
::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:07:30 :::
2 WP No. 12254/2015
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE :
15 th
March,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:-R.M.BORDE,J.)
1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for
the parties, the petition is taken up for final
disposal at admission stage.
2)
The petitioner is praying for issuance of
directions to the respondents to transfer the Project
Affected Person's Certificate, which was initially in
the name of one Balasaheb Bhanudas Shinde in favour
of petitioner No. 2 - Babruwan Bhanudas Shinde. It
is not a matter of dispute that certain land
belonging to petitioner No.1, who is father of
petitioner No.2, was acquired for public project. On
consideration of the request made by petitioner No.1,
a Certificate came to be issued in name of his son -
Balasaheb Bhanudas Shinde. However, since Balasaheb
could not secure employment on the basis of the
certificate and realizing that petitioner No.2, who
is another son i.e. petitioner No.1, is eligible for
appointment under the State Government, a request was
made for transfer of the certificate issued in the
name of Balasaheb in favour of petitioner No.2.
3) It has been contended that petitioner No.2
tendered an application seeking employment as a
Talathi from amongst the category of Project Affected
Persons and he has been selected in observance of the
due selection process. However, the request made by
the petitioner has been turned down by the
respondents on the ground that there is no
prescription under the policy to transfer project
affected person's certificate once it is issued.
4) It is the case of the respondents that the
certificate can be transferred only once and second
transfer of the certificate is not permissible under
the policy.
5) The issue raised in this matter is no more
res integra and is covered by the decision rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
Pralhad Kishanrao Ghogre and Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr. (Writ Petition No.10912/2015
decided on 4th February, 2016). The Division Bench
of this Court, while considering the issue raised
therein, has, in para 7 of the said judgment,
observed thus, -
"7. In the present matter it is not in
dispute that, petitioner No.1 is the
project affected person. Initially he
had nominated petitioner No. 2 for the
issuance of Project Affected Person
Certificate. Thereafter, petitioner
No. 1 applied for transfer of the said
certificate in name of petitioner No.
3. The same was permitted. However,
petitioner No. 3 could not get any
employment because of lack of
educational qualification, as such,
now petitioner No. 1 again wants the
said certificate to be given in the
name of original nominee i.e.
petitioner No. 2. The statute nowhere
creates a bar in this regard. The
Circular only lays down that second
transfer would not be permissible. The
said Circular cannot override the
avowed object of the statute. The
apprehension of the respondent as is
spelled out by the learned A.G.P. that
there would not be any record if the
certificates are transferred, does not
stand to any reason. The Rules, more
particularly, Rule 16 sub-Rule 4 of
the Right to Fare Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Maharashtra) Rules, 2014, lays down
that, when the appointment of project
affected person in priority quota is
made his original Project Affected
Person Certificate shall be send for
confirmation to the issuing Authority.
The appointment of such person shall
be confirmed only after receiving the
confirmation letter from the issuing
Authority. The certificate is required
to be verified and the original
certificate is to be retained by them
by affixing cancelled. The rules in
that regard which are framed under the
Right to Fare Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Maharashtra) Rules, 2014, takes the
necessary safeguard in that regard.
6) In view of the decision referred to above,
the claim of the present petitioners also deserves to
be considered. In this view of the matter, the
impugned order, refusing request of the petitioner
No.1 for transfer of the Project Affected Person's
Certificate in the name of petitioner No.2, is
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed
to issue a Certificate, on consideration of the
application tendered by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2,
permitting transfer of the certificate in the name of
petitioner No.2 so as to facilitate him to secure the
employment, for which he has been selected.
Respondent No.5 is directed to consider the claim of
petitioner No.2 for appointment to the post of
Talathi in furtherance of his selection and if found
eligible, issue an order of appointment to him
expeditiously and on fulfilling necessary
requirements.
7) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the
aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
sd/- sd/-
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/
