Tukaram Bhujanga Waghmare vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11233 Bom

                                                        930-wp-1315-2020 judg.odt



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     930 WRIT PETITION NO.1315 OF 2020

Tukaram s/o Bhujanga Waghmare
Age : 65 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o : Mohija (p.), Tq: Kandhar,
District : Nanded.                                     ...Petitioner

                 Versus

1.       State of Maharashtra.
         Through its Secretary,
         Revenue and Forest Department,
         Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
         Madam Cama Road,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.       Collector,
         Collector Ofce, Nanded District
         Collectorate, Wazirabad, Nanded.

3.       Deputy Collector Rehabilitation,
         Rehabilitation Department,
         Collector Ofce, Nanded District
         Collectorate, Wazirabad, Nanded.

4.    Divisional Commissioner
      Aurangabad Divisional
      Divisional Commissioner Ofce,
      Near Delhi Gate, Fazilpura,
      Aurangabad. Pin Code 431 001.
                                   ...

Ms. Savita N. Solunke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally by

consent of the parties.

930-wp-1315-2020 judg.odt

2. By this petition, the petitioner has put-forth prayer clause (B)

and (C) as under:

"B. By issue of writ of Mandamus or Order in the like nature, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the Respondent No.3 to issue Project Afected Person Certifcate in the name of Balaji Tukaram Waghmare who is the son of Petitioner.

C. Pending hearing and fnal disposal of the writ Petition, the Respondent No.3 may be directed to issue Provisional Project Afected Person Certifcate in the name of Balaji Tukaram Waghmare who is the son of Petitioner."

3. While issuing notices on 21.01.2021, we had summarized

the plea of the petitioner as under :

". An application for issuance of Project Afected Persons Certifcate is rejected on the ground that the land acquired from the petitioner is only 17R and the petitioner is not landless. Said order is passed purportedly on the basis of G.R. dated 03rd May, 2010 and the petitioner's land is acquired in the year 2004 and at that time G.R. dated 03.05.2010 was not in force."

4. The learned AGP has placed reliance upon the afdavit in

reply fled by the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation Branch, Ofce of the

District Collector, Nanded stating therein that though the land of the

petitioner to the extent of 17R was acquired for a public project in 2004,

he had made an application in the name of his son seeking a Project

Afected Persons (PAP) Certifcate on 18i.03.2016. By that time, the

Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010 was introduced whereby such

PAP certifcate could be granted to a person whose land ad-measuring a

minimum of 20R is acquired. As the land of the petitioner acquired in a

930-wp-1315-2020 judg.odt

public project is 17R, the petitioner was not entitled for a PAP certifcate

considering the Government Resolution dated 03.05.2010.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner has approached the

appropriate authorities as late as on 18i.03.2016 when he fled an

application seeking a PAP certifcate in the name of his son. It is also

admitted that the petitioner never applied for such a certifcate for himself

when his 17R land was acquired in 2004.

6. There is no dispute that a PAP certifcate can be obtained

even in favour of a son or such a close relative as is permissible vide

Government Resolution dated 21.01.198i0. The said government

resolution also prescribes the category of persons who can take beneft of

such a certifcate for seeking employment or other benefts from the

government.

7. It is crystallized law that a government resolution cannot be

made applicable with retrospective efect. Notwithstanding that the

petitioner did not move an application for seeking PAP certifcate to which

he was admittedly entitled to as in 2004, yet the Government Resolution

dated 03.05.2010 cannot apply to his case.

8i. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The

petitioner shall tender documentary evidence before respondent no.2 to

indicate that Balaji Tukaram Waghmare is his son. Such document shall

be fled on or before 15.09.2021. After respondent no.2 carries out the

verifcation of such relationship and if Balaji turns out to be the biological

son of the petitioner, a PAP certifcate shall be issued, preferably on or

930-wp-1315-2020 judg.odt

before 30.10.2021.

9. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

  (S.G. MEHARE. J)                          (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)




Mujaheed//