1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2301 OF 2010 Sandeep S/o Madhav Kendre } Age : 21 Years, Occ. : Education, } R/o : Kendrewadi, Taluka Ambajogai } District : Beed. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through Secretary, } Revenue Development } Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. } 2. The District Collector } Beed. } 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer } Division No. 2, Beed. } 4. The District Rehabilitation Officer, } Beed, District Beed. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.B.Tidke, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19/04/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Order/letter dated 19/1/2010 passed by the respondent no. 4 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Certificate as Project affected person. 3. The petitioner claims that his land was acquired for village level Tank at Kendrewadi, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. According to the petitioner, he possesses land from Gat No. 113 at Kendrewadi and the land which was acquired was to the extent of 10 R. i.e. half the share of the petitioner. The respondents have rejected the application on the ground that for the purpose for which the land of the petitioner was acquired, would not be a public purpose within the meaning of the Project affected person under the provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 ( For short, ‘ Rehabilitation Act ’ ) . Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to several orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court holding that if land is acquired for village level Tank, it would amount to acquisition of land for the public purpose and within the definition of the Rehabilitation Act. We accordingly allow this petition and quash 3 and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to decide the application afresh, in accordance with law, within period of four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2301.10 ( J )