7.wp.3289.17.jud.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3289 OF 2017 Petitioners : 1. Dashrath s/o Hiralal Birkhede, Aged 97 years, Occ. Nil 2. Premsingh s/o Balchandra Birkhede, Aged 29 years, Occ. Nil, Both R/o Ward No.2, New Koradi, Near Kaivalya Medical Store, Police Quarter, Koradi, Tal. Kamthi, Dist. Nagpur. – Versus – Respondents : 1. Collector (Rehabilitation), Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 2. Chief Engineer (O & M), Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., Thermal Power Station, Khaparkheda, Tah. Saoner, Dist. Nagpur. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr. Amol Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner(s). Mr. A.J. Gohokar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J J. DATE : 8 th APRIL, 2 026. J U D G M E N T : (Per Anil L. Pansare, J.) 01. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 02. On 16th March, 2026, the following order was passed: Deleted as per Court’s Order dated 16/03/2026. Incorporated as per Court’s Order dated 22/02/2019. 2026:BHC-NAG:5517-DB 7.wp.3289.17.jud.doc 2 “Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a pursis seeking deletion of petitioner No.1 from the cause title. 2. In view of the pursis, permission is granted. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title forthwith. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 seek time to go through the re-joinder filed by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the issue involved in the present matter is covered by the judgments of this Court inHanuman Ramaji Chikankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.3602 of 2020 and Chirkut S/o Laxman Chikankar & Anr. Vs. Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Office of Collector, Nagpur & Anr. in Writ Petition No.6314 of 2019. 5. The respondents shall go through the said judgments and make a statement in that regard. 6. List the matter for further consideration in the week commencing from 06.04.2026.” 03. The learned A.G.P. submits that the issue involved is covered by the judgment referred to in the aforesaid order. However, according to him, the Project Affected Person (PAP) Certificate is issued to the owner of the property. Petitioner No.1 - Dashrath Birkhede (since deceased) was the owner of all four properties, which have been acquired. 04. The argument of the petitioner, however, is that no such certificate has been issued in respect of acquisition of the property under question 7.wp.3289.17.jud.doc 3 i.e., Survey No.96 (Old No. 236), Mouza Karodi, admeasuring 0.40 hectare. It is not specifically disputed by the respondents that PAP Certificate was not issued against this property. However, the learned A.G.P. submits that this aspect will have to be examined. 05. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the purpose of filing the petition will be served if the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for consideration afresh in accordance with law, including the judgment cited in the order dated 16/03/2026. The decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1 on 15th April, 2026. 06. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly with no order as to costs. (Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.) *sandesh