Bombay High Court
Atul S/O Ramchandrarao Chandore vs The State Of Mah, Thr. Sect. To The ... on 4 May, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp1470.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1470 OF 2005.
Atul son of Ramchandrarao Chandore,
Age 33 years, resident of At and Post
Nachangaon, Tahsil Deoli,
District Wardha. ....PETITIONER.
ig VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary to the Government
of Maharashtra in the Department
of General Administration,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Wardha,
District Wardha.
3. Commandant, Central Ammunition
Depot, M.O.D. Pulgaon,
District Wardha. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Smt. Neeta Jog, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A.V. Palshikar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mrs. M. Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:39 :::
Judgment wp1470.05
2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH , JJ.
DATED : MAY 04, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard learned Counsel for the parties for some time. Smt. Jog,
learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the matter for
more than 10 years before this Court cannot be used against the petitioner
and he must be given employment as he is project affected person.
According to her, even if the petitioner today is more than 40 years of age,
and may have therefore, grown age barred for recruitment, his age at the
time of filing of the petition must be looked into.
2. She has invited our attention to the policy decision issued by the
Government of Maharashtra on 21.01.1980, to urge that the project affected
persons like petitioners needed to be provided employment on highest
priority. She submits that keeping in mind the object of the scheme, the
respondents should have not insisted for moving an application, but, on their
own, extended an opportunity of employment to the petitioner. It is pointed
out that the Government Resolution dated 21.01.1980, shows that this
policy is in force since 20.11.1973.
Judgment wp1470.05
3. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned
Counsel for respondent no.3 state that land was requisitioned under Section
19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 for the purpose of Central Ammunition
Depot at Pulgaon, in the year 1949. It was acquired in pursuance of a
notice No. 977-A-II-C dated 02.09.1949. Thus, a person, then owner of land
can claim himself to be project affected. It is pointed out that the present
petitioner may not have been born on that day. It is further contended that
merely because the proceedings for payment of additional compensation
remained pending till 2004, the petitioner i.e. heir of original owner or then
other heirs, cannot claim to be project affected person.
4. Learned A.G.P. submits that as the acquisition is under Defence of
Indian Act, 1939 provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons
(Rehabilitation) Act, 1999 are not attracted.
5. We have perused the reply affidavit filed on record by the
respondent no.2 Collector. In reply affidavit, the Collector, Wardha has
pointed out that in 1949 compensation was accepted under protest and
enhanced compensation was awarded on 26.08.1994 under Arbitration Case
Judgment wp1470.05
No.37/52 by the Additional District Judge, Wardha. It was paid by the
Collector to petitioner on 16.09.2003. Thus, proceedings for claiming
enhanced compensation remained pending from 1952 till 2003. Ms.
Chandurkar, learned counsel has pointed out that additional compensation
paid to petitioner is about Rs. 33,185/-.
6. Several questions arise for consideration. Smt. Jog, learned
Counsel has in the course of arguments submitted that as entire land of
family has been acquired steps towards rehabilitation were expected, but,
the same have not been taken. In this situation, merely because application
for declaration as project affected person was not moved within stipulated
time, or then claim is by dependent of that owner, the benefit of welfare
measure cannot be declined. She also contended that if the petitioner has
become age barred, as displacement of family is not in dispute, his nominee
can be given benefit so as to extend some solace to the family.
7. All these questions can be looked into after necessary material is
produced on record. Perusal of resolution dated 21.01.1980, shows that it is
on the subject of priority of employment in government service in Class-III
and Class-IV category to project affected persons or to his dependents. The
Government Resolution also refers to earlier government resolution dated
Judgment wp1470.05
20.11.1973. Thus, the policy appears to be vogue, at least since 20.11.1973.
Perusal of above mentioned 1999 Act shows that earlier there was a
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1986 which has
been repealed by Section 28 of the 1999 Act. According to the respective
counsel, there was an enactment of 1976 also on the subject. We do not
wish to go into these niceties. Effort of learned A.G.P. is to demonstrate
that acquisition for CAD cannot be viewed as a project as defined in Section
2[10] of the 1999 Act.
8. As the fact that entire land of petitioner has been acquired, is not
in dispute, we grant petitioner liberty to make appropriate application for
grant of service as project affected person to respondent no.2 Collector
within a period of four weeks from today. Smt. Jog, learned counsel submits
that there is no requirement of making such application, because in terms of
1976 Act, obligation was cast upon the Collector himself to issue such a
certificate without any application, and as per 1980 Government Resolution,
production of certificate was sufficient to claim employment.
9. Learned A.G.P. points out that as situation prevailing today is to be
considered, provisions of 1999 Act and law as expounded by this Court in
case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and another .vrs. State of
Judgment wp1470.05
Maharashtra and others, (2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 961), needs to be applied.
10. As the claim pertains to 1949 acquisition, which has reached
finality in 2003, we find it convenient to permit the petitioner to apply for
grant of such certificate. Petitioner can seek such certificate for himself or
for his nominee, if law permits it.
11.
Office of respondent no.2 Collector shall look into necessary
material produced on record by the petitioner and then take suitable
decision upon it within next three months.
12. With liberty to petitioner to renew the grievance thereafter, if
order of Collector is adverse, we dispose of the Writ Petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
