Kundlik S/O. Namdeo Dhawale And Another v. Deputy Collector, Nagpur And Others

0801wp6284.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6284/2015 Kundlik s/o Namdeo Dhawale and another ...Versus...

Deputy Collector, Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Tembhare, AGP for respondent no.1 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 08.01.2016 The matter was sought to be adjourned at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners at 10:30 a.m. However, this Court refused to adjourn the matter and informed the learned Counsel that the matter would be heard for admission as no ground was made out for grant of adjournment. None appears for the petitioners when the writ petition is called for hearing.

Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.

By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Additional Collector (Rehabilitation), Nagpur dated 16.4.2015 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for transfer of the project affected persons certificate in the name of the petitioner no.1 in favour of the petitioner no.2. On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner no.1 was appointed by the Chief

0801wp6284.15.odt Engineer in the Koradi Thermal Power Station on the basis of the project affected person certificate issued in favour of Namdeo Yadao Dhawale towards the acquisition of his land bearing Survey Nos.271/2 and 359/5. Though it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 was appointed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 on merit and was not appointed as a project affected person, the said fact stands disputed by the document, dated 31.3.2015 at Annexure - 8 to the writ petition. It appears from the document at Annexure - 8 that though it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 was appointed on the basis of merit, according to the document issued by the respondent nos.2 and 3 to the respondent no.1, the petitioner no.

1 was appointed on a post earmarked for the project affected person, in view of the acquisition of the land Survey Nos.271/2 and 359/5. Since there is a clear dispute in regard to the nature of the appointment of the petitioner, whether it was on a post earmarked for the project affected persons or not, the said question cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioners are free to avail appropriate remedy for seeking a declaration that the petitioner no.1 was not appointed on a post earmarked for the project affected persons on the basis of the certificate, if so desired. Since the impugned order is based on the information supplied to the respondent no.1 by the respondent nos.2 and 3, there is no reason to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar