1 W.P.No.7016 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7016 OF 2010 Babasaheb S/o Kashinath Pathade, Age 55 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Sashti Pimpalgaon, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna, at present residing at Narla, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Jalna, District Jalna 2. Shri Bhivraj s/o Rangnath Shendre, Age 50 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Sashti Pimpalgaon, Taluka Ambad, District Aurangabad 3. The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad .. Respondents Mr P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr V.H.Dighe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 Mr S.B.Talekar, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 18th November, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT 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 W.P.No.7016 of 2010 2. Remand by the learned Divisional Commissioner to the Collector at Jalna, by order dated 24.5.2010 concerning the agricultural property received by the petitioner under the scheme of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons is questioned by the petitioner. The basic grievance of the petitioner is, the learned Commissioner exceed in his direction of remand, as he mandatorily addressed the learned Collector to review the order dated 19.11.2008, in the light of Government Resolution dated 24.12.2004 and also the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999. 3. Mr Katneshwarkar submits, the petitioner lost his immovable properties around 61 acres at village Unchegaon Pathade for mega- project of Marathwada region, i.e. Jayakwadi Project before 40 years. His entire land was acquired, he was landless. The land given to him in lieu of his land was meager and at a far-fetch distance in Jalna district for which also he has faced several litigations to enjoy fruits thereof. 4. The petitioner has canvassed that owing to physical disabilities, he had acquired some hand loan from one Mr Thorve and Mr Navle, and entered into a mortgage of the land allotted. The petitioner, in the year 2002 repaid the amount of above referred two persons and affidavits to that extent were executed in favour of the petitioner by them. He asserts, there is no violation of terms of sanction. 3 W.P.No.7016 of 2010 5. Mr Talekar submits, the benefit sought by the petitioner herein to the rules framed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, concerning rehabilitation of project affected persons will not override import of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and in particular Section 16, proviso (1), which inhibits alienation of the land from Class II category to Class I before the expiration of ten years. 6. Considering the above facts of the matter, the learned Collector, after remand of the matter to him, shall not be influenced to the observation of learned Commissioner to refer the Government Resolution dated 11.6.2004. However, he shall also be considering the legal position, as emerged in the rules of 13.12.1989 and also Section 16 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons’ Rehabilitation Act, 1999. This is more so, the learned Collector shall be alive to the fact that property of the petitioner was acquired for the Jayakwadi Project in the year 1968-69, and the legal position then existed. 7. Petition allowed to the extent as above. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (vvr/7016.10wp)