Vikas Bhaulal Janjale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7023 Bom

                                                            W.P. No.6188/2008
                                        1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        WRIT PETITION NO.6188 OF 2008




 Vikas s/o Bhaulal Janjale,
 Age 37 years, Occ. Service,
 R/o Vishwa Jyoti Chowk,
 Yawal, Taluka Yawal,
 District Jalgaon                             ...      PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          through its Secretary for
          Ministry of Revenue and Forest
          Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
          (Copy to be served on G.P.,
          High Court of Bombay,
          Bench at Aurangabad)

 2.       The Collector,
          Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

 3.       The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
          (3), Upper Tapi Project, (Hatnoor),
          Jalgaon.

 4.       District Rehabilitation Officer,
          Jalgaon, District Jalgaon

 5.       Superintendent Engineer,
          Public Works Division,
          Jalgaon, District Jalgaon           ...      RESPONDENTS


                                 .....
 Shri Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
 Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for State
                                 .....




::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2017 02:15:30 :::
                                                                   W.P. No.6188/2008
                                           2


                                 CORAM:         R.D. DHANUKA AND
                                                SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATED: 12th September, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.D. DHANUKA, J.) :

1. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and

setting aside the order dated 8/9/2008, passed by the

respondent No.4, thereby cancelling the certificate of project

affected person, issued by respondent No.3 in favour of the

petitioner as far back as in the year 1995.

2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding

this Writ Petition are as follows :

The grandfather of the petitioner namely Ganu

Sakharam Janjale was the owner of agricultural land bearing Gat

No.96, admeasuring 1 H. 37 R. The said land was acquired by

the respondents for Hatnoor Project. It is the case of the

petitioner that, after conducting due enquiry in the matter, the

respondent No.3 issued the certificate in favour of the petitioner

as project affected person, being the grandson of Ganu

W.P. No.6188/2008

Sakharam Janjale. It is not in dispute that, under the

Government policy for issuing such certificate of project affected

person, one of the grandchild of the person whose land was

acquired, could be conferred certificate of project affected

person.

3. Based on the said certificate dated 19/5/1995, issued

by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner

applied for a job in the category of project affected person with

the respondent No.5. On 4/7/1996, the petitioner was appointed

as permanent Junior Clerk in the said category. On 5/2/2003,

the petitioner was made permanent in the said job as Junior

Clerk/ Typist.

4. On 11/3/2008, the respondent No.2 issued notice to

the petitioner informing the petitioner that an enquiry in respect

of the certificate of project affected person, issued by the

respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner was conducted and

the petitioner was called upon to remain present before the

enquiry officer.

5. On 8/9/2008, the respondent No.4 passed an order

cancelling the certificate of project affected person issued by the

W.P. No.6188/2008

respondent No.3 on 19/5/1995 in favour of the petitioner. This

order dated 8/9/2008 is impugned by the petitioner in this Writ

Petition on various grounds.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, it

was not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has

suppressed any true and correct facts before the respondent

No.3 who had issued the certificate of project affected person in

favour of the petitioner on 19/5/1995. He submits that, relying

upon the said certificate, the petitioner was already granted

employment by the respondent No.5 as far back as on 4/7/1996

and was thereafter made permanent on 5/2/2003.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that, even if

the respondent No.4 could have applied the Government

Resolution dated 1/1/1980 annexed at Exhibit R-2 to the

affidavit-in-reply, the respondent No.2 being not responsible for

grant of such project affected person certificate to the petitioner

as far back as on 19/5/1995 and petitioner being in employment

of the respondent No.5 since 4/7/1996, the services of the

petitioner cannot be affected in view of the order of cancellation

of the certificate of project affected person by the respondent

No.4 vide order dated 8/9/2008.

W.P. No.6188/2008

8. Learned A.G.P. invited our attention to the

Government Resolution dated 1/1/1980 and more particularly

condition prescribed in clause 2(a) thereof, and would submit

that, after issuing such certificate of project affected person to

the petitioner, it was subsequently found that the residual

cultivable area of land with the grandfather of the petitioner was

more than 1 Hector with the grandfather of the petitioner, whose

land was acquired by the respondent. Learned A.G.P. submits

that, in view of these conditions, the petitioner at the first

instance, could not have been granted such project affected

person's certificate by the respondent No.3. Learned A.G.P.

submits that, the respondent No.4 has passed an order on

8/9/2008 after conducting proper enquiry and has cancelled the

said project affected person's certificate, issued by the

respondent No.3 in view of the fact that the same was issued in

violation of the Government Resolution dated 1/1/1980.

9. It is not the case of the respondents that the

petitioner had furnished any wrong information or had

suppressed any material facts before the respondent No.3 when

the petitioner was issued a certificate of project affected person

as far back as on 19/5/1995. It is also not in dispute that no

W.P. No.6188/2008

action in respect of the said certificate dated 19/5/1995 was

initiated by the respondent No.4 till 11/3/2008 i.e. for a period of

13 years. The notice dated 11/3/2008 issued by the respondent

No.2, calling upon the petitioner for an enquiry, does not indicate

that there were any allegations of fraud or suppression made by

the authority against the petitioner while issuing the certificate of

project affected person by the respondent No.3 on 19/5/1995.

The learned A.G.P. does not dispute that the petitioner has been

already in service since 4/7/1996 as a Junior Clerk in the

category of project affected person with the respondent No.5 and

was made permanent on 5/2/2003 in the post of Junior Clerk/

Typist.

10. A perusal of the order dated 8/9/2008, passed by the

respondent No.4 indicates that there are no allegations made

against the petitioner of any fraud or suppression of the fact that

the residual cultivable land of the grandfather of the petitioner

was more than 1 Hector as per Government Resolution dated

1/1/1980. In our view, even if the residual cultivable land of the

grandfather of the petitioner was more than 1 Hector on the date

of acquisition of the said land by the Government, the petitioner

cannot be blamed for such erroneous order passed by the

respondent No.3. Based on the said certificate of project affected

W.P. No.6188/2008

person, dated 19/5/1995, the petitioner has been already

appointed as Junior Clerk on 4/7/1996 and has been made

permanent on 5/2/2003. The action initiated by the respondent

No.2 was after a period of 13 years and that also without any

blame to the petitioner for issuance of such certificate dated

19/5/1995. In our view, the petitioner thus cannot be punished

for issuance of such project affected person's certificate.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course

of arguments, fairly stated that, none other member of the family

of his grandfather had made any claim in respect of such

certificate. He submits that, if this Court comes to the conclusion

that the said certificate dated 19/5/1995 issued by the

respondent No.3 was in the teeth of the Government Resolution

dated 1/1/1980, though the petitioner was not responsible for

issuance of the said project affected person's certificate dated

19/5/1995, he would not claim any benefit under the said

certificate if his services with the respondent No.5, which is

continued since 19/5/1995 is protected by this Court.

12. The learned A.G.P. though was justified in pointing

out the Government Resolution dated 1/1/1980, could not satisfy

this Court on the issue as to whether the petitioner was at all

W.P. No.6188/2008

responsible or had made any suppression or had committed any

fraud in obtaining such project affected person's certificate dated

19/5/1995 and as to why an action was initiated for the first time

after 13 years of issuance of such certificate. In our view, a right

is accrued in favour of the petitioner based on such project

affected person certificate, which cannot be disturbed at this for

no fault of the petitioner. The statement made by learned

counsel for the petitioner that henceforth the petitioner would not

claim any benefit under the project affected person's certificate

dated 19/5/1995, is accepted.

13. We, therefore, pass the following order :

ORDER

(i) The respondents shall not take any adverse action

against the petitioner based on the impugned order

dated 8/9/2008, passed by the respondent No.4 either

in respect of the employment of the petitioner with the

respondent No.5 or otherwise.

(ii) It is made clear that, the petitioner shall not claim any

benefit under the said certificate of project affected

person, dated 19/5/1995 henceforth, nor any other

W.P. No.6188/2008

family member of the grandfather of the petitioner Ganu

Sakharam Janjale would be eligible to claim any benefit

under the said certificate of project affected person,

dated 19/5/1995.

(iii) It is made clear that, we are not interfering with the

impugned order dated 8/9/2008 in view of the relief

granted aforesaid.

(iv) Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Rule is

made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

          (SUNIL K. KOTWAL)                  (R.D. DHANUKA)
               JUDGE                               JUDGE




 fmp/