19-WP-12509-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12509 OF 2025 Akash Prakash Londhe ...Petitioner. Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Akshay Subhash Jagtap for the Petitioner. Mr. R. P. Kadam, ‘B’ panel Advocate for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 20, 2026. P. C. : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 26.09.2025, issued by Respondent No.3, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), refusing to grant a Project Afected Certiicate to the present petitioner on the ground that, as per Mutation Entry No. 1542, the said acquired Gat Nos. 12 and 13 shows 34 sub divisions of acquired land and NOCs of the others have not been submitted. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land in Gut Nos. 12 and 13, situated at Malegaon, was regranted watan land to the grandfather of the petitioner and others, being the landholder of the land in the year 1965. Out of the said Gat Nos. 12 and 13, certain portion was acquired for the construction of the Ujjani Left Bank Project in which the land of Harish 1 of 6 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.08.25 19:36:15 +0530 19-WP-12509-2025.doc Petitioner’s grandfather was also acquired. After the regrant of the Watan land, the petitioner’s grandfather and others became aware that their names had not been added to the revenue record being holders of the land, and an application was made to the revenue oicer and thereafter the process of addition of names of revenue record started, and the names of the petitioner's grandfather and his brother were added to the revenue record. 3. Since the land standing in the name of the petitioner's grandfather was acquired for the project, who expired on 18.02.2013, the petitioner iled an application on 10.09.2024, to obtain the Project Afected certiicate as per Government Resolution dated 21.01.1980. The application came to be rejected by the impugned order, and hence the present petition is iled. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land, which was Watan land, was regranted to the petitioner's grandfather and as it was found that their names had not been included in the revenue record, an application was made. He points out Mutation Entry No. 1542, by which, pursuant to the government notiication, the names of the petitioner's grandfather was included in respect of portions of Gat Nos. 12 and 13. He submits that the GR of 21.01.1980, permits the grant of a Project Afected certiicate to one member of the family, and there is no requirement of obtaining the NOC of the other Harish 2 of 6 19-WP-12509-2025.doc owners of the subdivided plots. 5. Learned AGP would submit that the oice record shows acquisition from Gat Nos. 12 and 13 for the construction of the Ujjani Left Bank. He would submit that at the time of acquisition of land, Kamgar Mahar Malegaon was the original owner of the above land, and in the year 1961, the land bearing Gat Nos. 12 and 13 was regranted to Kamgar Vatandar Mahar Malegaon through Krushna Pira Londhe, Shankar Shravan Londhe, and Sopan Bhiva Londhe. He submits that the name of the petitioner’s grandfather is not recorded which clearly shows that the said land was never acquired by the respondent authorities. He would further submit that as per the GR of 21.01.1980, the certiicate can be granted to only one person, and therefore the consent of the owners of sub divided land as per Mutation Entry No. 1542 is required. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that an area admeasuring 6 H 85 Are out of Gat No. 12 and area admeasuring 1 H 32 Are out of Gat No. 13 were acquired for the Ujjani Left Bank Project and inal Award was passed in 1977. Perusal of the Award indicates that the name of original owner is recorded as Watandar, Mahar, Malegaon. There is re- grant of Watan land and the reply aidavit states that the same was re- granted to Krushna Londhe, Shankar Londhe and Sopan Londhe and the Harish 3 of 6 19-WP-12509-2025.doc name of Petitioner’s grandfather is not relected. However Mutation Entry No. 1542 clearly relects the name of Petitioner’s grandfather in respect of Gat Nos. 13/1/25, 13/1/26 and Gat Nos. 12/1/18, 12/1/19 which evidences that the land was re-granted to the Petitioner’s grandfather. It is speciically pleaded that after re-grant, which had taken place prior to the Award, the names of Petitioner’s grandfather and others was not added to the revenue records and application was made and their names were added. There is no dispute to Mutation Entry No. 1542, which relects the Petitioner’s grandfather’s name. 8. The impugned order of 26.09.2025, rejects the application for Project Afected Certiicate on the ground that the consent of the other owners of sub divided land as per Mutation Entry No. 1542 have not been submitted. It further considers that as per Mutation Entry No. 602, the land was re-granted to Krushna Londhe, Shankar Londhe and Sopan Londhe and it is claimed that they are great grandfather of petitioner, whereas the certiicate could be granted till second generation. 9. In the aidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 3, the ground which has been taken is that the land of the petitioner’s grandfather was never acquired by the respondent authorities, which is not a ground for rejecting the application for the certiicate. The reasons for rejection in the impugned order cannot be supplemented by way of an aidavit. 10. The rejection was on ground of absence of consent of the owners Harish 4 of 6 19-WP-12509-2025.doc of sub divided land and the petitioner not being the grandson of the owners to whom the land has been re-granted. Dealing with the second ground, the petitioner claims through his grandfather and not through Krushna Londhe, Shankar Londhe and Sopan Londhe. The Petitioner’s grandfather’s name has been entered in the revenue records in respect of the acquired land. Coming to the issue of absence of consent, the reason is premised on the Government Resolution of 21.01.1980. The Government Resolution provides that the Project Afected certiicate can be issued to one member of the family. The Government Resolution of 21.01.1980, does not require the NOC from all the persons whose names have been recorded in respect of the subdivided land. The only restriction is that only one member of a family can get the beneit of the certiicate. In the present case, as in respect of GAt Nos. 12 and 13, the name of the petitioner’s grandfather is recorded and the petitioner has applied for the certiicate. The petitioner claims in respect of his family through his grandfather and not through the families of sub divided land. The owners of the sub divided land cannot be considered as one family for grant of Project Afected Certiicate. 11. In the Award, which is at page No. 22, in Column No. 6, the name is shown as Watandar Mahar Malegaon, and it is a speciic case that thereafter the land has been regranted, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 1542 has been efected. The Government Circular dated 21st Harish 5 of 6 19-WP-12509-2025.doc January, 1980 is beneicial scheme aimed at giving beneits to project afected persons and has to be construed accordingly. 12. In light of the discussion above, the impugned order requiring such NOC of owners of the sub divided land is unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. Resultantly, petition succeeds. The respondent No. 3 is directed to issue the Project Afected Certiicate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 14. Petition is allowed. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 6 of 6