Bombay High Court
Ramdas S/O Gulab Chikankar And ... vs The Collector (Rehabilitation), ... on 10 July, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
1
WP-4919, 2623, 2624 and 2625 of 2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4919 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2623 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2624 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2625 OF 2021
WRIT PETITION NO.4919 OF 2021
1. Smt. Durga W/o Keshav Chikankar,
Aged about 39 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Bhushan S/o Keshav Chikankar,
Aged about 18 years,
Occupation : Unemployed.
Both R/o Saholi, Post: Tamaswadi,
Tq. Parshivani, District- Nagpur. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Collector (Rehabilitation),
Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd.,
Through its Chief Engineer,
Khaperkheda Thermal Power Station,
Khaperkheda,
District- Nagpur-441102. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 22:23:20 :::
2
WP-4919, 2623, 2624 and 2625 of 2021.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2623 OF 2021
1. Tanba S/o Kisan Chikankar,
Aged about 86 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Suraj S/o Yogiraj Chikankar,
Aged about 20 years,
Occupation : Unemployed.
Both R/o Saholi, Post: Tamaswadi,
Tq. Parshivani, District- Nagpur. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Collector (Rehabilitation),
Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd.,
Through its Chief Engineer,
Khaperkheda Thermal Power Station,
Khaperkheda,
District- Nagpur-441102. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2624 OF 2021
1. Ramdas S/o Gulab Chikankar,
Aged about 73 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Nalini D/o Ramdas Chikankar,
Aged about 41 years,
Occupation : Unemployed.
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 22:23:20 :::
3
WP-4919, 2623, 2624 and 2625 of 2021.odt
Both R/o Saholi, Post: Tamaswadi,
Tq. Parshivani, District- Nagpur. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Collector (Rehabilitation),
Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd.,
Through its Chief Engineer,
Khaperkheda Thermal Power Station,
Khaperkheda,
District- Nagpur-441102. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2625 OF 2021
1. Smt. Lilabai W/o Jagan Chikankar,
Aged about 74 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Om S/o Rajesh Tangale,
Aged about 18 years,
Occupation : Unemployed.
Both R/o Saholi, Post: Tamaswadi,
Tq. Parshivani, District- Nagpur. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Collector (Rehabilitation),
Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd.,
Through its Chief Engineer,
Khaperkheda Thermal Power Station,
Khaperkheda,
District- Nagpur-441102. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2023 22:23:20 :::
4
WP-4919, 2623, 2624 and 2625 of 2021.odt
In all writ petitions :
Shri A.B. Patil, Counsel for Petitioners.
Smt. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Shri D.M. Kale, Counsel for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 10th JULY, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) :
1. Since a common issue arises in all these writ petitions, they are being
decided together by this common judgment.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel
for the parties.
3. The lands of the petitioners came to be acquired by the respondent
No.2- Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. ('the Company' for
short) for the purposes of laying down a pipeline for disposal of fly-ash of
Khaperkheda Thermal Power Station. After following the procedure
prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an Award came to be passed
on 8-2-2013. The petitioners applied for grant of Project Affected Person
certificate with the Company. The Company informed the respondent
No.1- Collector that no other person from the family of the petitioners had
been granted employment with the Company. The Collector however
refused to issue the certificate indicating that the petitioners were project
affected on the ground that the land in question that had been acquired
was less than 0.20 HR and in view of the Government Resolution
dated 3-5-2010, there was no entitlement to seek such certificate. Being
WP-4919, 2623, 2624 and 2625 of 2021.odt
aggrieved by the aforesaid refusal, the petitioners have approached this
Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that solely on
the basis of the Government Resolution dated 3-5-2010, the petitioners
were refused the benefit of Project Affected Person certificate, since the
land acquired was less than 0.20 HR. According to him, the Company,
even if it was assumed to be a Government Company, was not bound by
the aforesaid Resolution. On the contrary, the Circular
dated 11-7-2020 came to be issued by the Company stating therein that
even if the lands were acquired for the purposes of road, railway line,
rope way or canal pipe line, the benefit would be given to such person by
providing employment. There was no separate Resolution/Circular by the
Company adopting the Government Resolution dated 3-5-2010 so as to
deny the benefit of the Project Affected Person certificate to the petitioners.
It was submitted that the petitioners being affected by the acquisition of
their lands, they were entitled to rehabilitation by the Company.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Company has fairly invited
attention to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.3602 of 2020
(Hanuman Ramaji Chikankar Versus The State of Maharashtra and others )
dated 2-1-2023 and has submitted that in the said decision, the land was
acquired for aerial rope-way and the petitioner therein had been denied
the Project Affected Person certificate on the ground that the acquisition of
the land for aerial rope-way was not covered by the Government
Resolution dated 13-4-1988 as well as the Circular dated 8-1-1981.
WP-4919, 2623, 2624 and 2625 of 2021.odt
Reference was made to the Circular dated 11-7-2000 and on that basis, the
petitioner therein was held entitled to issuance of the Project Affected
Person certificate.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent No.1- Collector has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply of the
Collector and has invited attention to the Government Resolution
dated 3-5-2010. She states that unless the minimum land admeasuring
0.20 HR was acquired, such benefit was not admissible. Similarly,
considering the restrictions placed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue
(Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, the petitioners were not
entitled for being issued such certificate.
The learned counsel for the petitioners in reply has referred to the
decision in A.K. Bindal and another Versus Union of India and others
[(2003) 5 SCC 163) and further submitted that the petitioners sought
employment only with the Company and they were not desirous of
utilizing the certificate for any other purposes.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the decision in Hanuman Ramaji Chikankar (supra), we find that in
somewhat similar circumstances, after considering the Circular
dated 11-7-2020 issued by the Company as well as the Circular
dated 8-1-1981 and the Resolution dated 13-4-1988 issued by the
Government, a direction was issued to grant the Project Affected Person
certificate to the petitioner therein. It is seen that as per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Bindal and another (supra), the
WP-4919, 2623, 2624 and 2625 of 2021.odt
identity of a Government Company is distinct from the Government. Even
assuming that the Company was a Government Company, the petitioners
could not be denied benefit of the Circular dated 11-7-2020, since it is the
policy of the Company to grant such benefit consequent upon acquisition
of land for the use of the Company. In the present case, the land has been
acquired for laying down a pipeline for disposal of fly-ash and hence the
matter is covered by the aforesaid Circular. Despite being a Government
Company, the said Company has not adopted the Government Resolution
dated 3-5-2010, which is the basis for denial of the benefit. Thus
following the ratio of the decision in Hanuman Ramaji Chikankar (supra)
and in the light of the reasons assigned therein, we find that the
petitioners are entitled to grant of such benefit.
7. Accordingly, the orders passed by respondent No.1- Collector refusing
to grant such the Project Affected Person certificate to the petitioners are
set aside. The Collector shall issue a certificate indicating that the
petitioners are Project Affected Persons pursuant to acquisition of their
respective lands under the award dated 8-2-2013. The statement made by
the petitioners that such certificate would be utilized only for seeking the
employment from the Company is accepted. The certificate when issued is
liable to be utilized only for said purpose. The Collector is directed to
issue such certificate to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from
today.
WP-4919, 2623, 2624 and 2625 of 2021.odt
8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
LANJEWAR
