AKASH PRAKASH LONDHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                                                                    19-WP-12509-2025.doc



          Digitally signed
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          by HARISH
HARISH
VITHAL
          VITHAL
          CHAUDHARI
                                                CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CHAUDHARI Date:
          2026.08.25                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          19:36:15 +0530



                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 12509 OF 2025

                        Akash Prakash Londhe                                 ...Petitioner.
                                Versus
                        The State Of Maharashtra And Others                  ...Respondents.

                                                          ——————
                        Mr. Akshay Subhash Jagtap for the Petitioner.
                        Mr. R. P. Kadam, ‘B’ panel Advocate for the Respondent-State.
                                                          ——————

                                                            Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                                        Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                            Date      : August 20, 2026.
                        P. C. :

                        1.        By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated

                        26.09.2025,       issued     by   Respondent      No.3,   Deputy      Collector

                        (Rehabilitation), refusing to grant a Project Afected Certiicate to the

                        present petitioner on the ground that, as per Mutation Entry No. 1542,

                        the said acquired Gat Nos. 12 and 13 shows 34 sub divisions of acquired

                        land and NOCs of the others have not been submitted.

                        2.        The case of the petitioner is that the land in Gut Nos. 12 and 13,

                        situated at Malegaon, was regranted watan land to the grandfather of

                        the petitioner and others, being the landholder of the land in the year

                        1965. Out of the said Gat Nos. 12 and 13, certain portion was acquired

                        for the construction of the Ujjani Left Bank Project in which the land of


                        Harish                               1 of 6
                                                     19-WP-12509-2025.doc


Petitioner’s grandfather was also acquired. After the regrant of the

Watan land, the petitioner’s grandfather and others became aware that

their names had not been added to the revenue record being holders of

the land, and an application was made to the revenue oicer and

thereafter the process of addition of names of revenue record started,

and the names of the petitioner's grandfather and his brother were

added to the revenue record.

3.       Since the land standing in the name of the petitioner's

grandfather was acquired for the project, who expired on 18.02.2013,

the petitioner iled an application on 10.09.2024, to obtain the Project

Afected certiicate as per Government Resolution dated 21.01.1980.

The application came to be rejected by the impugned order, and hence

the present petition is iled.

4.       Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

land, which was Watan land, was regranted to the petitioner's

grandfather and as it was found that their names had not been included

in the revenue record, an application was made. He points out Mutation

Entry No. 1542, by which, pursuant to the government notiication, the

names of the petitioner's grandfather was included in respect of

portions of Gat Nos. 12 and 13. He submits that the GR of 21.01.1980,

permits the grant of a Project Afected certiicate to one member of the

family, and there is no requirement of obtaining the NOC of the other


Harish                           2 of 6
                                                      19-WP-12509-2025.doc


owners of the subdivided plots.

5.       Learned AGP would submit that the oice record shows

acquisition from Gat Nos. 12 and 13 for the construction of the Ujjani

Left Bank. He would submit that at the time of acquisition of land,

Kamgar Mahar Malegaon was the original owner of the above land, and

in the year 1961, the land bearing Gat Nos. 12 and 13 was regranted to

Kamgar Vatandar Mahar Malegaon through Krushna Pira Londhe,

Shankar Shravan Londhe, and Sopan Bhiva Londhe. He submits that the

name of the petitioner’s grandfather is not recorded which clearly

shows that the said land was never acquired by the respondent

authorities. He would further submit that as per the GR of 21.01.1980,

the certiicate can be granted to only one person, and therefore the

consent of the owners of sub divided land as per Mutation Entry No.

1542 is required.

6.       We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

7.       There is no dispute about the fact that an area admeasuring 6 H

85 Are out of Gat No. 12 and area admeasuring 1 H 32 Are out of Gat

No. 13 were acquired for the Ujjani Left Bank Project and inal Award

was passed in 1977. Perusal of the Award indicates that the name of

original owner is recorded as Watandar, Mahar, Malegaon. There is re-

grant of Watan land and the reply aidavit states that the same was re-

granted to Krushna Londhe, Shankar Londhe and Sopan Londhe and the


Harish                            3 of 6
                                                        19-WP-12509-2025.doc


name of Petitioner’s grandfather is not relected. However Mutation

Entry No. 1542 clearly relects the name of Petitioner’s grandfather in

respect of Gat Nos. 13/1/25, 13/1/26 and Gat Nos. 12/1/18, 12/1/19

which evidences that the land was re-granted to the Petitioner’s

grandfather. It is speciically pleaded that after re-grant, which had

taken place prior to the Award, the names of Petitioner’s grandfather

and others was not added to the revenue records and application was

made and their names were added. There is no dispute to Mutation

Entry No. 1542, which relects the Petitioner’s grandfather’s name.

8.       The impugned order of 26.09.2025, rejects the application for

Project Afected Certiicate on the ground that the consent of the other

owners of sub divided land as per Mutation Entry No. 1542 have not

been submitted. It further considers that as per Mutation Entry No. 602,

the land was re-granted to Krushna Londhe, Shankar Londhe and Sopan

Londhe and it is claimed that they are great grandfather of petitioner,

whereas the certiicate could be granted till second generation.

9.       In the aidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 3, the ground which has

been taken is that the land of the petitioner’s grandfather was never

acquired by the respondent authorities, which is not a ground for

rejecting the application for the certiicate. The reasons for rejection in

the impugned order cannot be supplemented by way of an aidavit.

10.      The rejection was on ground of absence of consent of the owners


Harish                            4 of 6
                                                         19-WP-12509-2025.doc


of sub divided land and the petitioner not being the grandson of the

owners to whom the land has been re-granted. Dealing with the second

ground, the petitioner claims through his grandfather and not through

Krushna Londhe, Shankar Londhe and Sopan Londhe. The Petitioner’s

grandfather’s name has been entered in the revenue records in respect

of the acquired land. Coming to the issue of absence of consent, the

reason is premised on the Government Resolution of 21.01.1980. The

Government Resolution provides that the Project Afected certiicate

can be issued to one member of the family. The Government Resolution

of 21.01.1980, does not require the NOC from all the persons whose

names have been recorded in respect of the subdivided land. The only

restriction is that only one member of a family can get the beneit of

the certiicate. In the present case, as in respect of GAt Nos. 12 and 13,

the name of the petitioner’s grandfather is recorded and the petitioner

has applied for the certiicate. The petitioner claims in respect of his

family through his grandfather and not through the families of sub

divided land. The owners of the sub divided land cannot be considered

as one family for grant of Project Afected Certiicate.

11.      In the Award, which is at page No. 22, in Column No. 6, the name is

shown as Watandar Mahar Malegaon, and it is a speciic case that

thereafter the land has been regranted, pursuant to which Mutation

Entry No. 1542 has been efected. The Government Circular dated 21 st


Harish                             5 of 6
                                                       19-WP-12509-2025.doc


January, 1980 is beneicial scheme aimed at giving beneits to project

afected persons and has to be construed accordingly.

12.      In light of the discussion above, the impugned order requiring

such NOC of owners of the sub divided land is unsustainable and is

hereby quashed and set aside.

13.      Resultantly, petition succeeds. The respondent No. 3 is directed

to issue the Project Afected Certiicate to the petitioner within a

period of four weeks from today.

14.      Petition is allowed.



 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                      [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




Harish                            6 of 6