1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3892 OF 2010 Shri Narayan s/o Limbajirao Chaval, Age 41 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Mantha, Taluka Mantha, District Jalna. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served upon the Government Pleader, Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Divisional Office, Aurangabad 4. The District Rehabilitation Officer, Collector Office, Jalna. 5. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Mantha, Taluka Mantha, District Jalna. 6. The Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shvi V.D. Salunke, Advocate with Shri Anirudh Nimbalkar, Advocate for the petitioners Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5 ..... 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 6th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Undisputedly, the house of the petitioner came to be acquired, and consequent to the scheme of rehabilitating the displaced/ affected persons under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, certain land came to be acquired at village Mantha. Accordingly, the plots were laid and the allotment of the plots to the displaced persons commenced. Prior to that, a preliminary survey of each displaced person was undertaken to determine the number of members in his family. One such list is annexed by the petitioner to this petition as Exhibit C. Perusal of the aforesaid list shows that the name of the petitioner appears at Sr.No. 119 in the list. The first column deals with Survey Number, while the second column deals with the name of the person concerned. The third column is in respect of House Number which was acquired, the fourth column deals with the number of family members in his family and the fifth column deals with Survey Number etc. of the plot allotted 3 to the displaced person. According to the aforesaid list, as pointed out by us earlier, the name of the petitioner appears at Sr.No.119 and the number of family members shown are 9. The number of plots allotted to the petitioner is 1.5. 3. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the provisions of the Act and particularly to the Schedule appended thereto, which is Part IV of the Schedule. Part IV of the Schedule deals with the category of affected persons and the area of the plot to be granted in a Gaothan. This Part IV is divided into two parts i.e. dealing with the agricultural and second part dealing with the non-agricultural use. In respect of an agriculturist, the Schedule lays down that if the number of members in his family does not exceed 5, the said person would be entitled to 370 sq. mtr., but if the number of members of his family exceed 5, then an additional area of 185 sq. mtrs. for other three additional members subject to the ceiling of 740 sq, mtrs. in the aggregate. Undisputedly, the family of the petitioner consists of 5 persons. For the first 5 members, the petitioner would be entitled to 370 sq. mtrs. and in respect of the other 3 members in his family, the petitioner would be entitled to 185 sq.mtrs. Since the family of the petitioner consists of 9 members, the petitioner would not be entitled for additional 185 sq. mtrs. as the Schedule specifies that for every three additional members the area of 185 sq. mtrs. would be 4 applicable. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled to in law for an area of 370 sq. mtrs. plus 185 sq. mtrs., which works out to 555 sq. mtrs. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been allotted the plot admeasuring 555 sq. mtrs. 4. Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply shows that the respondents have taken an incorrect stand in the affidavit before this Court. Though the additional plot Numbers 28 to 33 were available for allotment to the displaced persons under the Act, the Collector, it appears, has taken a decision to reserve the said plots for administrative building of the Police Station, Mantha, District Jalna, on the specious ground that the construction of the earlier building being old construction etc. Since we are not called upon in this petition to examine the correctness of the decision taken, we refrain from making any observations in that regard. However, if the land is acquired by the Government for rehabilitating the persons who are displaced on account of a public project, such plot cannot be allotted to anyone else except the displaced person. 5. In the light of what has been stated by us above, the petitioner, who is entitled for 555 sq.mtrs., has accordingly been allotted the aforesaid area, and the petitioner would not be entitled for 740 sq. mtrs. We, therefore, find that there is no merit in the petition 5 and the petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, since we have issued Rule in this petition, we discharge the rule. No order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)