JAYWANT RAMESH TAYDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    (1)                   942-WP-14155-2021


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 942 WRIT PETITION NO. 14155 OF 2021

Jaywant Ramesh Tayde                             ...Petitioner
      VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others              ...Respondents
                                    ...
Mr. Girish V. Wani, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

                                  CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                             AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                                  DATE     : 25th JUNE 2026.

PC :-


1.      Heard Mr. Wani, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Kale,

the learned Addl.G.P. for Respondent/State and Mr. Gaikwad, the

learned Advocate for the Respondent No.3. By consent of the parties,

petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.


2.      The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by cancellation

of certificate of Project Affected Person by the learned Collector by order

dated 23.03.2021. The petitioner happens to be son of one Mr. Ramesh
                                    (2)                 942-WP-14155-2021


Maharu Koli (Tayde), who happens to be grand-son of one Kesharbai

Devchand Koli, whose land was acquired. An award was passed in her

favour. A certificate being Project Affected Person was granted in favour

of one Rajesh Maharu Koli, grandson of Kesharbai Koli.           Petitioner

happens to be nephew of Rajesh Koli, as father of petitioner namely,

Ramesh, and Rajesh are the brothers. Since Rajesh could not get the

benefit of service because of crossing the age of 45 years, the certificate

in his name remained unutilized. The application was, therefore, made

for transfer of the certificate in the name of present petitioner. A

certificate came to be transferred in the name of petitioner. However,

subsequently, the learned Deputy Collector, (Rehabilitation), Jalgaon,

cancelled the certificate by communication dated 23.03.2021. The

petitioner is thus before this Court.


3.    Learned Advocate Mr. Wani, appearing for petitioner, vehemently

argued the petition. He submits that since the certificate could not be

utilized by his uncle and as he crossed the age for getting employment, it

was rightly transferred in the name of present petitioner after holding
                                   (3)                  942-WP-14155-2021


necessary inquiry. Even a communication was issued on 09.10.2020

addressed to Respondent No.3 that the certificate in the name of

petitioner is valid. However, still without holding any inquiry, the

certificate subsequently came to be cancelled. He submits that it is on

the premise that two persons namely, Dhanraj Hari Koli (Tayde) and

Sopan Natthu Tayde, were already granted employment on daily wages,

and therefore, the certificate issued in favour of petitioner came to be

cancelled. He submits that there is nothing to show that Dhanraj Koli

and Sopan Tayde happen to be relatives of original Project Affected

Person, late Kesharbai Koli. It is also not shown that those persons

secured employment being Project Affected Persons. In such case, he

submits that action of the Collector in cancelling the certificate is

arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and set aside.


4.    Learned AGP vehemently opposes the petition. He points out from

the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.2/State that the benefits

under Project Affected Person Certificate can be taken by only one

person from the family. In the present case, it was brought to notice of
                                      (4)               942-WP-14155-2021


the authorities that two persons namely, Dhanraj Koli and Sopan Tayde

were already working. It is therefore the certificate in the name of

petitioner was cancelled. He relied upon the Government decision dated

21.01.1980, which lays down the conditions and criteria for issuing

Project Affected Person Certificate and about benefits. The record was

considered by the Collector, and it is only thereupon the order was

passed. There is no case made out to quash the certificate. He thus prays

for rejection of the writ petition.


5.    Learned Advocate Mr. Gaikwad for Respondent No.3 prays for

passing an appropriate order.


6.    Considering the submissions and the record, it is seen that initially

a certificate was issued to the petitioner. There is also a communication

dated 09.10.2020 issued by Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Jalgaon

stating that the said certificate was valid. There is nothing to indicate

that as to why the Collector issued impugned order. What is observed is

that one Dhanraj Hari Koli and Sopan Natthu Tayde were given work on

daily wages basis. The letter was issued only on the basis of letter
                                          (5)                  942-WP-14155-2021


received from Respondent No.3. However, there is nothing to show that

how those persons are related to the deceased Kesharbai.


7.           Considering all above, this Court finds that there was no reason for

the Collector to cancel the Certificate issued to the petitioner as Project

Affected Person. Taking overall view, this Court finds that petition

deserves to be allowed. Petitioner, therefore, stands allowed in terms of

prayer clause (B).


8.           Needless to state that the petitioner be issued with Project Affected

Certificate. Certificate be issued within a period of two weeks from

today.


9.           With these, writ petition stands disposed off.




[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]                             [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]


D.A.ETHAPE