1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2704 OF 2010 Namdeo s/o Ganpati Kardile, Age 75 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Dadegaon, Taluka Ashti, District Beed .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, 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 Shri M.S.Karad, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 7th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. 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 prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the certificate of project affected person to the petitioner. 3. It appears that the land of the petitioner came to be acquired for the construction of a village tank. The land was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Division No.2, Beed for the aforesaid public purpose. Despite that the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of a certificate as project affected person came to be rejected by the authorities. In the light of the several judgments of this Court, particularly, Sou.Sangita w/o Balu Sable vs. State of Maharashtra and others, in Writ Petition No.4478 of 2007 decided on 15.10.2007 and in Writ Petition No.7388 of 2006 decided on 16.06.2007 and the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.303 of 2010, dated 5.2.2010, we fail to understand as to how the issuance of the said certificate could be refused. 4. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 12.3.2010 and direct the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of the several judgments passed by this Court. The 3 petitioner is at liberty to produce the copies of the said orders before the authorities. We expect the authorities to decide the application of the petitioner, afresh, in accordance with law, within period of four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/2704.10wp)