1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1645 OF 2010 Shripati s/o Rambhau Bhavar, Age 48 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Bhavarwadi, Taluka Ashti, District Beed .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Through the Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Beed, District Beed 3. The District Rehabilitation Officer, Beed, District Beed .. RESPONDENTS Mr.D.R.Jayabhar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 30th 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 challenges the order passed by the respondent – authorities declining to issue certificate to the petitioner as a project affected person. 3. According to the petitioner, the land of the petitioner came to be acquired for the construction of a village tank i.e. for a public purpose. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the acquisition of land for construction of a village tank is a purpose which is squarely covered under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 and, therefore, petitioner would be entitled to be issued with the certificate as a project affected person. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that in similar cases orders have been passed by the Division Bench of this Court directing the authorities to decide the application afresh in the light of the law laid down by this Court and the petitioner would produce the judgments before the authorities. 5. In that light of the statement, therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondents – authorities for a decision afresh, in accordance with law. The petitioner to produce the copies of the judgment of this 3 Court before the authorities within three weeks from today and the authorities to decide the application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter. 6. Rule made absolute on above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/1645.10wp)