Writ Petition No.6839 of 2008

30th July, 2009

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. RAHUL THAKUR
Respondent Counsel: Shri. V. S. GOKHALE

JUDGMENT

Mrs. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.:- Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the refusal to issue certificate of Project Affected Persons by the Respondent No.1 under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (By amendment repealing the Act of 1986, see Section 28 of the said Act).

3. Survey No.275, Gut Nos.273 and 274 situate at Village Darve was the ancestral property of the petitioners. The State has acquired said land of the petitioners for the Township of Navi Mumbai Project in the year 1986 by passing award in the Unit Case No.59, Award No.179. Shri. Savalaram Chandar Naik - father of petitioner No.1 and grand-father of Petitioner No.2 was then in possession and was cultivating the said land. Savalaram Chandar Naik, and his son-Petitioner No.1 are "affected person" as defined under Section 2 of the Act and entitled to the rehabilitation and the other benefits provided under the provisions of the said Act. Inter alia, the certificate as project affected person was issued to the petitioner No.1 on 4.3.1987. However, the petitioner No.1 was not educated and he was not found suitable and could not avail of benefit under any scheme or for employment available under the Government Scheme for project affected persons. However, his son-Petitioner No.2 who is educated, is entitled to get the PAP Certificate and so he has applied to the respondents for the same by letter dated 30.1.2006. The Respondent No.1, demanded certain documents and the petitioner made compliance by producing necessary document and NOC of all legal representatives and award holder for grant of certificate in favour of Petitioner No.2 on 18.07.2006. The respondents, by letter dated 2.8.2007 communicated refusal to issue such certificate in favour of Petitioner No.2 on the ground that the original Award holder - Savalaram Chandar Naik was dead on 19.6.2007, when the petitioner No.2 applied for the PAP Certificate. Hence, being aggrieved with the said letter of refusal to grant PAP certificate, the petitioners have filed the petition.

4. The Respondents have filed affidavit in reply opposing the application. The fact of acquisition of land from Savalaram Naik and his status as original award holder is admitted by the respondents. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State has placed reliance on the GR dated 14th September, 1998 under which, if the person in whose name the award is declared, is directly dependent on the person who has applied for the PAP certificate is only entitled to receive PAP certificate and in the given case, Savalaram Chandra being deceased, is not dependent on his grand son - Petitioner No.2 and hence, there is no question to issue PAP certificate to his grandson i.e. Petitioner No.2.

5. By this GR, the grandson or daughter-in-law are entitled to get PAP certificate, if they are living in joint family and project affected person is dependent on grandson or daughter in law. The Bill No.XXVII of 1999 in respect of this enactment was introduced with a view to consolidate and amend the law relating to rehabilitation of persons affected by certain projects under the State of Maharashtra. It is a beneficial legislation in which the State takes responsibility to resettle the persons who are affected by the act of the State. On account of lengthy and cumbersome procedure laid down in the Act and also the rising expectations of project affected persons, timely settlement of the displaced persons due to various projects in the State Could not be achieved and, therefore, the Government, on 21st October, 1995 appointed a Committee, which submitted the report in November, 1995 and after considering the recommendation of the Committee, the law relating to the rehabilitation of the project affected person was amended by laying down adequate, simple, effective and speedy procedure for rehabilitation of the persons affected by projects.

6. The GR dated 14th September, 1998, therefore, needs to be read taking into consideration the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, 1999 which clearly speaks out that it is a welfare legislation. The purpose of the scheme is to give economical support not only to the original award holder but also extend to the family which consists of grandson or daughter-in-law as they are also included under the GR as person entitled to obtain PAP Certificate. Dependency of the original award holder is the condition precedent for such entitlement. The GR further restricts the number of such entitled family members to only one. In the other words, only one member falling in the category of the relatives mentioned in the GR can get the certificate. The, fruits of the scheme, if not timely given, then the purpose of the scheme itself is defeated. By acquisition of land, livelihood of the person is taken away. So, his son or grandson and the family suffers. The said GR dated 14th September, 1998 is to be interpreted by adopting beneficent rule of construction. If the Original award holder was dependent during his life time on the grand-son, then even after the death of the original award holder, that past dependency is to be considered and makes the grand son entitled to PAP certificate. Thus, the dependency may exist before making application for the said certificate and grandson is to be considered as entitled under the GR to get the PAP Certificate. Such a construction is only likely to assist the achievement of the policy of the Act, 1999. What contemplates rehabilitation and resettlement of the person (inclusive of the family members) the benefit to which a person (or his family) is entitled on being uprooted and affected by virtue of acquisition of his land cannot become extinct on his/her death unless it is availed by him or his family. The G.R. rather takes into contemplation all such contingencies and enables the person or any member of his family to receive the benefits. The G.R. only extend the list of beneficiaries to the relatives mentioned therein and it will be erroneous to interpret it as sought to be explained in the affidavit-in-reply of the respondents.

7. The Petition is therefore required to be allowed in terms of prayer Clause (b).

"Prayer Clause (b) : This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order, direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to issue/grant a Project 'Affected Person Certificate' to Petitioner No.2 within a period of 15 days from today."

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.