1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4358 OF 2009 Shaikh Dildar Rasul Shaikh, age 40 yrs., occ.Agri., r/o Pargaon (Jod), Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The District Resettlement Officer, Beed ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner impugns the communication dated 5.3.2008 issued by respondent no.2 declining to issue certificate of “project affected person” to the petitioner. 3. Undisputedly, the land of the petitioner came to be acquired for the purposes of construction of a village tank. The respondent no.2 came to the conclusion that the construction of a village tank was not a “project” within the meaning of definition of sub-section (10) of section 2 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. Shri S.L. Bhapkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the Division Bench judgment dated 17.6.2008 in Writ Petition No.263 of 2008 (Bhagwanrao Narayan Joshi & anr vs. State of Mah. & ors). In the aforesaid petition the question which was posed for consideration before the Court was whether the acquisition of the land for construction of the village tank amounted to “project” within the meaning of sub-section (10) of section 2 of the said Act. The Division Bench after considering the definition of “project”, came to the conclusion that there could be no hesitation that the petitioners whose lands had been acquired for the said purpose is eligible to all the benefits which are given to the project affected persons. 4. In the light of the said Division Bench judgment, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the 3 impugned order and direct respondent no.2 to issue the certificate to the petitioner as belonging to “project affected person”. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] amj/wp4358.09