1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3104 OF 1998 Kaknaji s/o Shrawan Pawale, age: 75 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Vasarni, Tq. & District Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Collector, Nanded, District Nanded. 3 The District Rehabilitation Officer, Nanded, District Nanded. Respondents Mr.S.K.Adkine, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 14 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.): 1 By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents for issuing Certificate of “Project Affected Persons” in favour of the petitioner. 2 The land of the petitioner has been acquired by the State for 2 City & Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO). An application came to be filed by the petitioner for issuance of “Project Affected Persons” certificate in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 ( “the said Act”). The said application was rejected on the ground that the land in question was acquired for urban and industrial development. 3 Sub-section (10) of Section 2 defines the “project”. Sub-clause (e) of sub-section (10) would clearly include an “industrial project”. The perusal of sub-section (10) would reveal that it is not an exhaustive definition but is an inclusive definition. The residuary clause would also include the colony, etc.. In that view of the matter, impugned order is not sustainable. 4 Rule is made absolute by directing the Respondents to issue “Project Affected Persons” certificate to the petitioner, if otherwise the petitioner is eligible for the same. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE ******* adb/wp310498