1 W.P.No.6617.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6617 OF 2009 Shridhar S/o Maruti Ghanwat, Age 61 years,Occup.Agril, R/o Talani, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. 2. District Collector/ District Rehabilitation Officer, Ahmednagar,District Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. N.B.Narwade,Advocate for Petitioner. Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :( PER : NARESH H.PATIL, J. ) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard and finally decided at the stage of admission. 2 W.P.No.6617.09 2. It is contention of the petitioner that his land was acquired for Jaikwadi Project in the year 1995. On 15.06.2009 the petitioner applied for certificate as ”Project Affected Person”. The Authority concerned rejected the application. By communication dated 29th June, 2010, the concerned authority directed the petitioner to furnish more details in respect of consent letter of the petitioner’s brother Suryabhan Maroti Ghanwat, residence certificate and other revenue entries. The petitioner submits that the consent was given by his brother, but the petitioner has not submitted other details with authority concerned. Since, the Certificate of “Project Affected Person” is not issued to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner approached this Court. 3. The respondent No.2 filed affidavit in reply. The main contention of the respondent-deponent is that the land acquired is recorded in the name of Suryabhan Maroti Ghanwat and Shridhar Maroti Ghanwat, therefore, it was necessary to obtain 3 W.P.No.6617.09 consent of Surayabhan Maorti Ghanwat. This contention was raised by the Tahsildar Rehabilitation on the basis of opinion of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the case Nagesh Alias Satish Nagorao Pande Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary reported in 1994 Law Suit (Bom) 488. 5. We have perused the judgment cited supra. We have also perused the provision of Maharashtra Project Affected Rehabilitation Act 1986. We have perused the definition of “Affected Person”. In the light of the provisions of law, the petitioner’s case is to be considered. The certificate issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer itself demonstrates that the land acquired was jointly owned and possessed by the petitioner and his brother Suryabhan. 4 W.P.No.6617.09 6. In the light of the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that written consent of brother of the petitioner namely Suryabhan Maroti Ghanwat is not required as the petitioner’s land was also acquired for the project. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the certificate as ”Project Affected person”. 7. For the reasons stated above, we direct the respondent No.2 to issue certificate in the name of petitioner as “Project Affected Person” within six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 8. AGP to communicate this order to the concerned Authority, at the earliest. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK