( 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