2022 Supreme(Bom) 716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
ANIL L. PANSARE, RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Subhash S/o Eknath Nafade – Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6251 of 2022
Decided On : 23-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.V. Dixit.
For the Respondent: S.G. Karlekar
The exclusion of 'grand daughter-in-law' from the definition of affected persons and the requirement of dependency for entitlement were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Project Affected Person Certificate - Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 - 1074@3500@1, 20 ekpZ 1975 e/;s - Summary: The court discussed the definition of 'affected person' and 'family' under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, and the Government Resolution dated 21.01.1980. It emphasized the exclusion of 'grand daughter-in-law' from the definition and the requirement of dependency for entitlement. The court also considered the issue of delay and suppression of material information in the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior citizen, sought a mandamus for the issuance of a Project Affected Person Certificate for his daughter-in-law. The land was acquired for a thermal power station, and the petitioner's father was the original owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, citing the exclusion of 'grand daughter-in-law' from the definition of affected persons, the issue of delay, and the petitioner's suppression of material information.
Issues: The issues included the eligibility for a Project Affected Person Certificate, the definition of 'family' under the Act, and the impact of delay and suppression of information on the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the exclusion of 'grand daughter-in-law' from the definition of affected persons, the requirement of dependency for entitlement, and the impact of delay and suppression of material information on the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner, a 73 years old senior citizen, has put forth prayer Clause ‘A’ as under:
“For a writ of mandamus Order or direction in nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 for issuance of Project Affected Person Certificate in favour of Aishwarya Chandrashekhar Nafade.”
3. The father of the petitioner, Eknath (since deceased) was the owner of land situated in Gut No. 26/4 of the village Nimbhora (Bk.), Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. Out of such land, an area admeasuring 3 Acres 8 Gunthas was acquired for the construction of the thermal power station by Award dated 28.05.1962. Besides this portion of the land, a parcel of land admeasuring 10R was acquired out of land situated in Gut No. 22/1-B+2+3 in the same village, in 1975 for erecting a thermal power station.
4. By this petition, the petitioner has represented before us that as his daughter-in-law Smt. Aishwarya has not been granted a Project Affected Person (hereinafter referred to as ‘PAP’) Certificate, that we should exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction invoking the Writ of Mandamus and issue a direction to the Competent Authority to issue a Project Affected Person certificate in favour of Smt. Aishwarya.
5. This petition has been preferred on 17.04.2022. The State of Maharashtra introduced a Government Resolution dated 21.01.1980 for issuing PAP certificate to be utilized by a Project Affected Person for seeking recruitment in Government establishment. The said Resolution provides for the affected person to make an application and seek the certificate.
6. There is no dispute that the land was acquired prior to 1962 and 1975 and the present petitioner seeks issuance of the PAP certificate for his daughter-in-law. The said land in Gut No. 26/4 which was acquired for the public project is set out in the Award dated 28.05.1962. Details of the land that was acquired prior to 1975 are not set out in the petition.
7. In this backdrop, Clause 2(c) of the Government Resolution dated 21.01.1980 becomes applicable, which reads thus:
^^mijksDr uksdjhfo"k;d loyrhP;k lanHkkZr ^^dsUæ 'kklu fdaok jkT; 'kklu ;kauh gkrh ?ksrysY;k ikVca/kkjs] oht vFkok brj dks.kR;kgh ÁdYikeqGs T;k O;Drhaps ?kj vkf.k@vFkok tehu iw.kZr% fdaok va'kr% laikn.;kr vkyh vlsy** v'kk O;Drhauk ^^ÁdYixzLr O;Drh** eku.;kr ;kos ;k lanHkkZr R;k O;Drhps ?kj vkf.k@vFkok tehu iw.kZr% fdaok va'kr% T;k ÁdYiklkBh laikfnr dj.;kr vkyh vlsy rks ÁdYi ^^egkjk"Vª ÁdYi foLFkkfirkaps iquoZlu dk;nk] 1976** [kkyh vf/klwfpr >kyk vkgs fdaok ukgh gs y{kkr ?ks.;kph vko';drk ukgh- rlsp uksdjhfo"k;d lanHkkZr ÁdYixzLr O;DrhP;k dqVqa ckrhy O;Drh o v'kk ÁdYixzLr O;Drhoj voyacwu vl.kkU;k O;Drh Eg.kwu ÁdYixzLr O;Drhpk irh vFkok v'kk O;Drhph iRuh] v'kk O;Drhps vKku eqyxs] v'kk O;DrhaP;k vfookfgr eqyh] v'kk O;Drhaps vKku HkkÅ fdaok cfg.kh] rlsp v'kk O;Drhps vkbZ o oMhy ;k O;Drhapk lekos'k xzkg; /kjkok ;k fu.kZ;kuqlkj 'kklu i=] eglwy o ou foHkkx Øekad vkjih,&1074@3500@1] fnukad 20 ekpZ 1975 e/;s fnysY;k ^^izdYixzLr O;Drhoj voyacwu vl.kkU;k O;Drh** ;k laKsP;k O;k[;sr vko';d cny dj.;kr ;kokA**
8. It is thus apparent from the said provision that a Project Affected Person will mean an include the person whose land has been acquired, his wife or her husband, the sons, unmarried daughters, minor brother or minor sister, mother or father. It, therefore, calls for no debate that the nucleus of this provision is the person who is actually the title holder and all those relations mentioned in the above reproduced provision are in relation to the said title holder. When this Government Resolution was introduced, the grandson or grand-daughters or even the daughter-in-law were not included in the definition of the family of affected person.
9. The State of Maharashtra introduced the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 on 14.03.2002 with effect from 01.04.2002. Section 2(2) defines an affected person as under:
“2.