1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5669 OF 2010 Gram Panchayat, Wardha Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha, Through its Sarpanch, Sau.Sadhna W/o Sudhakar Patil Age about 40 years Occupation Service R/o Wadhoda, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha. ….. Petitioner Versus 1).Collector, Wardha Having its office at District Rehabilitation Centre, Wardha 2).District Resettlement Officer Minor Lower Wardha Project, District Wardha. 3).Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur Having its office at Commissionerate, opposite GPO, Nagpur. 4).State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Housing Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ….. Respondents Shri P.V.Vaidya, counsel for petitioner Shri T.D.Khade, AGP for respondents .....2/- 2 CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 18th APRIL, 2011. Oral Judgment 1) This writ petition challenges the order dated 6.2.1010 passed by the Collector, Wardha and the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. The Collector by his order dated 6.2.1010 made allotment of land for rehabilitation of the persons under the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1980 on the basis of the list provided to him through the petitioner Gram Panchayat, Wardha, which is signed by the Sarpanch, affected persons, members of the Gram Panchayat, Talathi, Circile Office, Nayab Tahsildar, Police Patil and Village Development Officer. The stand of the Collector in para-3 of the affidavit is that the objection was duly considered while passing an order dated 6.2.2010. 2) The petitioner Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, which has been rejected by an order dated 7/11.8.2010 on the ground that the appeal is not .....3/- 3 maintainable. This is the subject matter challenged in this writ petition. 3) The notice for final disposal of the matter was issued on 1.12.2010. Smt.T.D.Khade, the learned AGP appears for the respondent no.1 to no.4. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by the consent of the parties. 4) In making allotment by an order dated 6.2.1010, the Collector appears to have acted in exercise of his power under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1980. The contention of Shri P.V.Vaidya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Commissioner is the Chief Controlling Authority in rehabilitation matters as contemplated by Section 3 of the said Act and it is his duty to co-ordinate and supervise the work of rehabilitation of affected persons in his district. According to him, the Commissioner being an authority exercising superintendence and empowered to issue direction to the Collector, can entertain the grievance of the petitioner in respect of the correctness of the list acted upon by the Collector, .....4/- 4 though there is no specific provision of appeal. According to him, Section 22 of the said Act, bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to settle/decide and deal with any question which is by or under said Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the project authority, Collector, Commissioner or the State Government. Hence, according to him, the Commissioner can judge the correctness of such list and pass an appropriate orders deciding the grievance of the petitioner. 5) The Commissioner has passed an order on 7/11.8.2010, holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The question whether the power conferred by Section 4 of the said Act upon the Commissioner, can be construed as a power of superintendence and control, is required to be gone into. The Commissioner has neither referred to the said provision nor considered the said question. The question is required to be considered in the light of the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner which is stated in earlier para. Hence, the order passed by the Commissioner, cannot be sustained. The same is liable to be quashed and set aside. .....5/- 5 6) For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The order dated 7/11.8.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, holding that the appeal is not maintainable, is hereby quashed and set aside. The Commissioner is directed to consider the question as to whether the power under Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, can be considered as revisional power of superintendence and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. JUDGE BRwankhede ...../-