1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7481 OF 2003 DATTATRAY SADASHIV SONAWANE .. PETITIONER Vs. DISTRICT REHABILITATION OFFICER, NASIK .. RESPONDENT Mr. Avinash D. Kanga for petitioner Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT. R. S. DALVI,JJ. DATE: 22/2/2008 P.C. . The petitioner claims to be a project affected person. It is his case that the land owned by him bearing Survey No. 932 situate at Morwadi, Taluka and District Nasik was acquired by the Government of Maharashtra for City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) in the year 1980. Award was passed in the year 1986. On 19/3/01 the petitioner moved the respondent, District Rehabilitation Officer, Nasik for issuance of a certificate stating that he is a project affected person. The respondent refused to issue such certificate. The 2 petitioner sent a notice dated 28/5/01 to the respondent, however he has not responded to the said notice. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He submitted that the petitioner’s land was acquired by the Government for the project undertaken by CIDCO. He relied on G.R. dated 21/1/80 issued by the Government of Maharashtra which says that if a person’s land is acquired wholly or in part by the Central Government or the State Government for any irrigation project, power project or any other project, such a person should be treated as a project affected person. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner is clearly covered by this G.R. and he has wrongly been denied the certificate. 3. We have also heard learned AGP. We have been taken through the affidavit of Ms. Sadhana Padmakar Sawarkar, District Resettlement Officer, Nashik, who has referred to Government Resolution dated 25/7/91. Reliance is placed on the definition of the word "affected person" given in Section 2(2) of The Maharashtra Project Affected 3 Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 (for short "the said Act"). Reliance is also placed on the definition of the word "Project" as set out in Section 2(10) of the said Act. It is contended that the petitioner is not covered by Section 2(2) and hence Section 2(10) is not applicable to him. 4. The affidavit of Ms. Sawarkar states that the Government Resolution dated 25/7/91 states who are eligible to be called project affected person. A copy of the said Government Resolution is annexed to the affidavit. Section 2(2) defines ’affected persons’. Government Resolution dated 25/7/91 states that Section 2(2) of the said Act is applicable, if the project falls within the ambit of Section 2(10). 5. Section 2(10) of the said Act reads as under: "2(10) "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. 4 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 and includes any work of construction, extension, improvement or development which is incidental or supplemental to the execution of a project; and which results in rendering the holders or occupants of land, which maybe used for such project, as affected persons and in respect of which a notification is issued under Section 11: 6. It is stated on oath by Mrs. Sawarkar that the petitioner’s land is not utilised for any irrigation project, power project, public utility project or any composite project: Under Section 11 5 of the said Act the State Government has to issue notification in respect of a project to which the said Act applies notifying arrears of affected and benefited zones. The affidavit states that such a notification is not issued in the instant case. It is also stated in the affidavit that Government Resolution dated 21/1/80 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner has no application to his case. Government Resolution dated 25/7/91 has superceded all previous Government Resolutions. 7. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner’s case is not covered by Section 1(4) (a) of The Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 ("the 1999 Act" for short). As per this provision the benefits shall be provided to the irrigation project of which the areas of affected zone exceed 50 hectares or the area of the benefited zone exceed 200 hectares. It is stated that this provision shall not apply to the petitioner because the land is not acquired for irrigation project. The land is acquired for construction of houses by CIDCO. It is further stated that as per Section 1(4)(b) of the 1999 Act, it’s provision shall apply provided the concerned project authority enters into an agreement with 6 Government of Maharashtra. It is stated that in this case no such agreement is entered into by CIDCO with the State Government and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits. 8. The stand taken by the State is correct and legal. No rejoinder is filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances the petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed as such. JUDGE JUDGE