1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.6249 Of 2009 Kazi Sirazoddin s/o Shafioddin. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. V.S. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. Rekha K Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 2nd DECEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner prays for directions to the respondents for issuance of certificate of Project Affected Person. 2 3) The petitioner submits that he was owner of land Gut No.473 admeasuring 0.84 R situated at Chakur, District Latur. The said land was acquired by the Government for extension of Gaothan of village Chakur. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28-5-1992 and the Award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Office on 1-8-1996. The petitioner’s grievance is that by communication dated 14-6-2004 the District Rehabilitation Officer Latur rejected his application for grant of such certificate. The petitioner has placed reliance on reported judgment in Nagesh @ Satish Nagorao Pande v. The State of Maharashtra, 1995 (3) Bom. C.R. 376 and the orders passed in other writ petitions, annexed to the petition in support of his contention. 4) The State has filed affidavit-in-reply and contended that the petitioner’s land was acquired for extension of Gaothan and the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits as reflected in Government Resolution dated 1st January 1980. 3 5) We have perused the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. We have perused the definition of “Projected Affected Person”. Considering the provisions of the Act we find that the petitioner is not entitled for such certificate. Even otherwise the petitioner’s land was acquired long back in the year 1992. Prima facie, we are not satisfied with the submissions that the land for extension of Gaothan is a public utility project. 6) In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.6249.09