(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11253 OF 2010 Champati s/o. Lobhaji Dhokale, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Talachi Wadi, Taluka : Hadegaon, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Collector, Nanded, District : Nanded. 3. The District Rehabilitation Officer, Nanded, Taluka & District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.C. Bhosle, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Nanded, dated 23rd January 2008, refusing to issue a certificate, as prayed for by the petitioner, certifying that he is a project affected person. 3. The land belonging to the father of the petitioner, out of Gut No.58, admeasuring 2 Hectares 26 Are, has been acquired by the State Government. Due to acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner, he is rendered landless and this fact cannot be controverted. The petitioner had tendered an application requesting the respondent no.3 to issue a certificate certifying that he is a project affected person. However, the application has been turned down only on the ground that the same is made after 18 years from the date of acquisition of the (3) property, as well as, the certificate is requested for securing benefits to the grandson of the person whose land is stated to have been acquired. 4. The reason recorded in the order is wholly irrelevant. The issuance of certificate cannot have any bearing with the date of acquisition of the property and merely because the property has been acquired 18 years back, cannot be a ground for rejection of request for issuance of the certificate. It is also not within domain of the respondent no.3, to scrutinize as to who is seeking benefit under the circular. The reasons recorded in the order are wholly irrelevant and the respondent no.3 ought to have issued certificate, as requested by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only required to be considered by certifying authority, as to whether the property belonging to the person has been acquired and whether he fulfills the norms required for issuance of the certificate. The reasons stated in the order are extraneous and irrelevant and as a result of rejection of request of the petitioner, he is put to inconvenience and is required to approach this Court for a petty cause. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed with costs. (4) 6. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not interested in receiving the costs and the same may be directed to be paid to the Library of Advocates' Association at this Bench. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 23rd January 2008, passed by the respondent no.3, refusing to issue certificate of project affected person to the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondent no.3 is directed to issue a certificate in the prescribed form, certifying that the petitioner is a project affected person (iii) In the circumstances of the case, the respondent no.3 i.e. District Rehabilitation Officer, Nanded, who has rejected the application of the petitioner, dated 23rd January 2008, is directed to pay costs which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees five thousand]. The said amount of costs shall be deposited with the Library of Advocates' Association at this Bench within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to state, that the said costs shall be paid by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Nanded, who was officiating at the relevant time, personally, and not from (5) public exchequer. 8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11253