-: 1 :- wp-5513/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5513 OF 2010 Amarsinh A. Rane. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Tejpal Ingale for the petitioner. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondents. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 20, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Rule. 2. In view of the short question involved, rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. Advocate for the Respondents waive notice. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 3. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the order dated 22nd November 2008 passed by respondent no.2 -District Resettlement Officer, rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of “Project Affected Person” certificate [for short “PAP”] for the purposes of employment. 4. There is no dispute that the land bearing Gat No. 511A and 511B situated at Gargoti, District – Kolhapur, totally admeasuring about 89-R belonging to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner has been acquired srp -: 2 :- wp-5513/10 for construction of State Transport Bus Depot and State Transport Bus stand [for short ST depot and ST stand]. The petitioner on 26/12/2007 filed an application before respondent no.2 claiming PAP certificate. This application was rejected on the ground that the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 does not apply to the persons whose land is acquired for ST depot or ST stand. 5. Having gone through the petition alongwith annexures thereto and having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I find merit in the petition. Admittedly, the land belonging to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was acquired for ST depot and ST stand in the year 1969. 6. Section 2(10) of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 defines “Project” as follows : “Project” means (a) An irrigation project, that is to say, the construction, extension, improvement or development of any work for the supply of water for the purpose of irrigation; (b) A power project, that is to say, construction, extension, improvement or development of any work for the production or supply of electricity or any work conducive to electrical development; (c) A public utility project, that is to say, any work of the construction, extension, improvement or development of public utility other than irrigation project and power project, or (d)....” -: 3 :- wp-5513/10 7. Considering the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s land is also acquired for the “Project” within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2(10). 8. Similar question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in 1995(1)Mh.L.J. in the matter of Nagesh v.State of Maharashtra. and in Writ Petition No. 5558 of 1999 between Jagannath Dhondi Bhosale & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. The Division Bench held that the land acquired for the Government medical college will have to be deemed to have been acquired for the “Project” within the meaning of section 2(10) of the said Act. So far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge is concerned, the land was acquired for the Pune-Miraj Broad-Gauge Railway. The learned Single Judge after considering the definition of the “Project” had granted the certificate as claimed by the petitioner. 9. In my view, the decisions of the Division Bench as well as Learned Single Judge are clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petition, therefore, is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (R.V. MORE, J.)