1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 4757/2008 (Vishnu Tukaram Dhawane vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 19th January, 2009. *** Heard Mr Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Nitin Sambre, learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is in respect of orders dated 22.9.2008 and 10.3.2008 passed by the Collector as well as the order dated 23rd October,2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel. In the instant case, the Collector in his order dated 22.9.2008 has clearly mentioned, on the basis of relevant record, that certificate dated 7.4.2000 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer mentions the name of Wasudeo Wanjari and Vishnu Dhawane, as 'project-affected' persons. However, the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as, registered agreement, sale deed, revenue record of the year 1995-96, 7/12 extract, mutation entry, notice 2 published u/s. 4(1) and u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in spite of various chances as well as opportunities given to the petitioner in order to substantiate his claim as 'project-affected'person on the basis of certificate dated 7.4.2000. However, since the petitioner failed to produce the evidence, the Collector has held that the petitioner is not entitled to take any benefit on the basis of the said certificate which is meant for project-affected persons only. The order of the Collector also shows that the Collector has verified the office record and found no reference to issuance of certificate dat4ed 7.4.2000 anywhere in the said record. 4. The above-referred findings are the findings of facts and, therefore, it is not possible for us to adjudicate upon the same in a writ jurisdiction. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate his eligibility to get the project-affected person's certificate, the decision rendered by the Collector, in our view, is just and proper. Consequentially, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal also cannot be faulted. 5. For the reasons hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare