Abdul Salim Abdul Razzaque vs The District Collector Yavatmal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 137 Bom

                                                        1                        wp1911.11.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1911/2011

      Abdul Salim Abdul  Razzaque,
      aged about 34 years, Occ. Nil,
      r/o 8,Port Bhandegaon, Tq.Darwha,
      Dist. Yavatmal.                                             .....PETITIONER
                         ...V E R S U S...

 1. The District Collector, Yavatmal,
    Dist. Yavatmal.

 2. Dist. Resettlement Officer,
      Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.                                   ...RESPONDENTS
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 None for the petitioner.
 Shri A. S. Fulzele, Addl. G. P. for respondents.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   CORAM:-      SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
                                                  V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED :- FEBRUARY 28, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the

circular of the General Administration Department of the State

Government dated 15.05.1970, that the certificate could be

granted to the project affected persons on the date on which the

Section 4 notification is issued. The petitioner also seeks a

direction against the respondents to grant the certificate of Project

Affected Person to the petitioner, dated 15.01.2006 as according

to the petitioner, the possession of the land of the petitioner was

secured by the Government on the said date.

2 wp1911.11.odt

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land that

was acquired by the State Government for the Antargaon Lake

Project. According to the petitioner, the possession of the

petitioner's land was taken by the State Government on

15.01.2006. It is stated that a certificate of the Project Affected

Person was issued in favour of the petitioner on 19.05.2007.

According to the petitioner, on 25.02.2006 an advertisement was

issued in the newspaper for appointment to the post of Extension

Officer (Education). The petitioner applied for the said post and

secured 42 marks out of 80. The petitioner was called for the

interview and it is the case of the petitioner that on the date of the

interview, as the petitioner did not possess the Project-Affected

Person certificate, he was not considered for appointment.

According to the petitioner, since the possession of the land of the

petitioner was secured on 15.01.2006, the Project-Affected-Person

certificate should have been granted to the petitioner with effect

from the said date. According to the petitioner, the respondents

were not justified in granting the Project-Affected-Person

certificate to the petitioner on 19.05.2007. The petitioner has

challenged the Government circular dated 15.05.1970.

Shri Fulzele, the learned Addl. Government Pleader

3 wp1911.11.odt

appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayers made in the

writ petition. It is submitted that the circular of the State

Government dated 15.05.1970 was issued with a view to avoid the

delay in granting the Project-Affected-Person certificate to the

claimants. It is stated that it was noticed by the authorities that

there was delay in issuing the Project-Affected-Person certificate to

the claimants promptly and hence with a view to overcome the

hurdles in the way of the claimants, the circular was issued with a

direction to the concerned officers to grant certificate with effect

from the date on which the Section 4 notification was issued. It is

stated that Section 4 notification was issued in this case on

24.08.2006 and even though it is assumed that petitioner would

be entitled to grant of the certificate from the said date, the

petitioner would not have been entitled to the appointment as the

interviews were conducted on 19.06.2006. It is submitted that it

is unfortunate that the petitioner did not secure the employment

but the certificate could not have been issued in favour of the

petitioner before the said date. Further, it is submitted that there

is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition inasmuch as the

petitioner's candidature for appointment was rejected in July-

2006, the certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on

4 wp1911.11.odt

19.05.2007 and the petitioner has filed the writ petition on

21.01.2011. It is submitted that there is no explanation

whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition.

Lastly, it is submitted that the post of Extension Officer was

advertised for an open category candidate and the petitioner could

not have claimed any benefit on the basis of the Project Affected

Person certificate.

On hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader

and on a perusal of the writ petition, it appears that no case is

made out by the petitioner for challenging the circular or seeking

the appointment on the post of Extension Officer. The question

whether the land was secured on a particular date or not cannot

be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In this case, the

Section 4 notification was issued on 24.08.2006 and the petitioner

was granted Project-Affected-Person certificate on 19.05.2007.

The interviews for appointment to the post of Extension Officer

were conducted on 17.06.2006 and on the said date since the

Section 4 Notification was not issued, the Project-Affected-Person

certificate could not have been issued in favour of the petitioner.

We also do not find that there was an inordinate delay in issuing

the Project-Affected-Person certificate to the petitioner. In fact, we

5 wp1911.11.odt

find that there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition

inasmuch as the interviews were conducted in the year 2006 and

the petition is filed in the year 2011. Even though, the petitioner

was of the view that the Project Affected Persons certificate was

issued to him belatedly on 19.05.2007, the petitioner should have

filed the writ petition within a reasonable time. The petitioner has

waited for more than 4 years for filing the writ petition. There is

no explanation whatsoever for the delay. The petition suffers from

laches apart from the fact that it does not bear any merit.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no

order as to costs.

(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

kahale