Bombay High Court
Vasantrao S/O Rajaramji Tawlare ... vs Union Of India Through Its General ... on 16 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
J-wp544.15.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.544 OF 2015
1. Vasantrao s/o. Rajaramji Tawlare,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation : Nil.
2. Rupesh s/o. Vasantrao Tawlare,
Aged about 31 years,
Occupation : Student.
Both r/o. Post Sirajgaon (Band),
Tah. Chandur Bazar, District Amravati. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. Union of India,
through its General Manager,
Central Railway, C.S.T. Mumbai.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. President Bhartiya Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
4. Chief Engineer,
Amravati - Narkhed Railway,
L-19, Mandal, Nagpur.
5. Collector & Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Irrigation Department,
Amravati, District Amravati. : RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:12:19 :::
J-wp544.15.odt 2/5
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. S.S. Dhengale Advocate for the Petitioners.
Smt. P.D. Rane, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.2 & 5.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
th
DATE : 16 MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2.
Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the
parties.
3. This Court on 6th April, 2015 passed following order :
"Heard.
Prima faice it appears that 1.67 H.R. of
land of the petitioner i.e. his entire land has been
acquired and a railway station has been
constructed upon it. In earlier round of litigation,
while deciding Writ Petition No.3191 of 2014 on
31/10/2014, this Court has directed the
respondent to consider the grievance of the
petitioner. The petitioner's grievance is rejected
by placing reliance upon Clause 7 of Government
Resolution dated 17/4/2006. As per that G. R.,
when a narrow belt of land is acquired for
railway-line, the affected person only gets
compensation.
The land of the petitioners does not
prima facie appear to be a narrow belt. Contention
of the petitioner is, the said Clause 7 operates only
when the part of land is acquired and, therefore,
the affected person continued in possession of the
rest of the land.
J-wp544.15.odt 3/5
Notice, returnable on 21/6/2015.
Learned A.G.P. Smt. Maldhure waives
notice for respondent Nos. 2 and 5.
to consider the grievance of the petitioner in the
backdrop of prima facie observations recorded
above. However, whenever they file their reply, the
same shall explain the above question.
Notice by R.P.A.D. for respondent Nos.
1, 3 and 4.
Steno copy of the order is allowed."
4. Accordingly, the respondents have filed reply-affidavit
attempting to explain the situation. It is submitted that as per
clause 3(7) of the Government Resolution dated 17.4.2006 as lands
of petitioner are acquired for railway-line, the petitioners are not
entitled to give certificate as project affected person. It is pointed
out that the petitioner No.1 has filed application on 26.7.2001, but
certificate of acquisition of land is issued to him on 15.11.2014.
The petitioners are entitled for consideration under the resolution
dated 16.7.2010 of the Government of India, Ministry of Railways,
Railway Board. It is further stated that the Government has
clarified by letter dated 23.12.2010 that guidelines issued in
Government Resolution dated 17.4.2006 are not applicable to the
project affected persons, whose lands are acquired in the year 1996
to 2005 as it has only prospective effect.
J-wp544.15.odt 4/5
5. Insofar as later part of the directions is concerned, the
reply in paragraph 6 shows efforts made by the respondent No.5 to
obtain instructions from the State Government in the matter. He
has forwarded a letter on 27.4.2015 and a reminder on 21.5.2015.
Learned A.G.P. submits that response of State Government is still
awaited.
6. With the assistance of learned counsel for the respective
parties, we have looked into the provisions of the Maharashtra
Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999. It is not in
dispute that the certificate is required to be issued by the Collector
in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Section 2(10)
defines project and as per clause (c) thereof, acquisition for Railway
is an acquisition for a public utility project. It is, therefore, clear
that the petitioner is a project affected person.
7. As per Section 5 of this enactment, it is the duty of the
Collector to issue a certificate to a person, who is nominated by the
project affected person, for being employed against quota reserved
for nominees of the affected person.
8. In this situation, we do not find it necessary to wait for
the reply of respondent No.2-State Government in the matter. It is
also not in dispute that the entire land of petitioner admeasuring
J-wp544.15.odt 5/5
1.67 hector has been acquired for establishing a Railway Station. It
is, therefore, not an acquisition of a strip of land for placing upon it
a Railway line. Hence, in view of these facts, provisions of clause
3(7) of the Government Resolution dated 17.4.2006 are not
relevant in this case.
9. The impugned communication dated 20.11.2014 denies
certificate to the petitioner only on the ground that his land is
acquired for Railway- line.
10. In view of above finding, the said communication dated
20.11.2014 is quashed and set aside.
11. The respondent No.5-Collector, Amravati is directed to
issue certificate as desired by petitioner No.1-land owner within a
period of four weeks from today.
12. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
13. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However there
shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
okMksns
