ORAL JUDGMENT NARESH H. PATIL, J. :- Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is the owner of land S. Nos. 68, 69 and 131/1 of village Dhor-Chandgaon, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. Petitioner's land to the extent of 1 hectare and 24 Ares from S; No. 68 and 8 hectares and 24 ares from S. No. 69 came to be acquired on 30-10-1972. A common award bearing No. 176 of 1969 was made in respect of these two Survey numbers. So far as land S. No.131/1 is concerned, land to the extent of 2 hectares and 24 ares was acquired and a separate award bearing No.175 of 1969 was made. 3. The petitioner applied to the Land Acquisition Officer for issuance of certificate of 'Project Affected Person'. Later on he made an application to the Collector/District Rehabilitation Officer. The Collector, being the District Rehabilitation Officer, issued certificate of 'Project Affected Person' in favour of the petitioner on 20-10-1992. In the said certificate, a reference is made to the acquisition of petitioner's land S. No. 68. The petitioner claimed benefit under the said certificate in favour of his daughter Anuradha Bhausaheb Murkute. The District Rehabilitation Officer certified that Anuradha Bhausaheb Murkute belongs to the family of the petitioner and she was dependent on the petitioner. On the basis of the said certificate, petitioner's daughter Anuradha Bhausaheb Murkute secured employment in Government service. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed one more application on 18-11-2005 for issuance of certificate of 'Project Affected Person'. However, the petitioner has not annexed the said application with the petition. The petitioner filed an affidavit before the concerned authority on 22-7-2005 stating therein that his daughter Anuradha Murkute secured employment on the basis of the earlier certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as 'Project Affected Person' and now the petitioner requires such a certificate for the benefit of his son. By communication dated 21-11-2005, the District Rehabilitation Officer informed the petitioner that as he was earlier granted certificate as 'Project Affected Person' on 20-10-1992, a second certificate, to the same effect, could not be issued. This communication is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 5. By communication dated 21-11-2005, the District Rehabilitation Officer informed the petitioner that as he was earlier granted certificate as 'Project Affected Person' on 20-10-1992, a second certificate, to the same effect, could not be issued. This communication is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.3 - District Resettlement Officer and Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, filed an affidavit-in-reply. In the said reply, a specific contention is raised by the deponent to the effect that petitioner's land from S. Nos. 68, 69 and 131/1 was acquired for Jayakwadi . Project. By giving reference to the Government Resolution dated 21st January 1980 and Circular dated 25th July, 1991, it was sought to be contended that one person from the family of 'Project Affected Person' is entitled to receive benefit as a member of the family of the 'Project Affected Person'. Copies of the Government Resolution dated 21-1-1980 and Circular dated 25-7-1991 are annexed with the reply. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1999) is a welfare legislation. In respect of acquisition of petitioner's lands for Jayakwadi Project, two separate awards were made and, therefore, the petitioner' must be given benefit as a 'Project Affected Person' twice. The Counsel further states that the Government Resolution and the Circular shall be interpreted to mean that against each award, benefit of 'Project Affected Person' must be given to different persons of the same family and it shall not be restricted to one person of the family, even though separate awards in relation to the acquisition of lands owned by the same person are made. 7. The learned A.G.P. submits that considering the scheme of the Act of 1999 and the Government Resolution and Circular issued from time to time, the policy of the State Government is to grant benefit of 'Project Affected Person' to one person of the family whose lands are acquired for the concerned Project. Accordingly the daughter of the petitioner got benefit under the certificate of 'Project Affected Person', issued by the District Rehabilitation Officer on the application made by the petitioner. Accordingly the daughter of the petitioner got benefit under the certificate of 'Project Affected Person', issued by the District Rehabilitation Officer on the application made by the petitioner. It is not the policy of the Government to grant benefit for the second time to the same person on the ground that separate awards are made in relation to the lands from different Survey numbers. 8. We have considered the provisions of the Act of 1999 and the Government Resolution dated 21-1-1980 and the Circular dated 25-7-1991 placed on record of this Court. The provisions of Section 6(c) of the Act of 1999 reads thus: 6. It shall be the duty of the Project Authority- (a) ………. (b) ………. (c) subject to any reservations validly made and subject to availability of posts, to give highest priority in Class ill and Class IV category of service on the project establishment, to one member of the affected family nominated by the affected person, if such person is eligible for such employment according to the recruitment rules for such posts; Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, the expression "family" means the spouse, son unmarried or unmarried daughter or brother or sister, or daughter-in-law or grand son, or grand-daughter (which includes son or daughter of the daughter also) of the affected person, or adopted son or daughter who is residing with and is dependent on such affected person. In section 2(10), "project" is defined. 9. On perusal of the Government Resolution dated 21-1-1980, it is seen that in para 2 it is mentioned that the benefit under the Project Affected Person's certificate is to be granted to one person from the family of such 'Project Affected Person'. Considering the intention behind legislating the aforesaid provisions and the scheme, as reflected from the Government Resolution dated 21-1-1980 and Circular dated 25-7-1991, the interpretation, which is carved out by the petitioner in respect of the scheme of the Act and the Government Resolution and Circular for getting benefits twice of 'Project Affected Person', is not sustainable. 10. Considering the provisions of the Act of 1999 and more precisely the provisions of section 6(c) and the Government Resolution dated 21-1-1980 and Circular dated 25-7-1991, we do not find that the policy of the State Government, adopted in this behalf, is contrary to the provisions of law or arbitrary in nature. 10. Considering the provisions of the Act of 1999 and more precisely the provisions of section 6(c) and the Government Resolution dated 21-1-1980 and Circular dated 25-7-1991, we do not find that the policy of the State Government, adopted in this behalf, is contrary to the provisions of law or arbitrary in nature. The purpose of framing of the scheme is to grant benefit to one person from the family of the 'Project Affected Person', which has been achieved in this case. Petitioner's daughter Anuradha got employment in the Government service-taking benefit of the certificate of 'Project Affected Person' issued by the District Rehabilitation Officer in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner sought the benefit for the second time, which was rightly rejected. 11. The order of rejection of petitioner's claim is in consonance with the provisions of statute and the policy adopted by the State in this regard. We do not find any justification in the petitioner's claim for grant of such a benefit for the second time. Considering the definition of "Project" as defined in section 2(10) of the said Act, it is clear that the petitioner could not claim benefit for the second time on the ground that separate awards were made for lands falling in different Survey Numbers. The parties did not dispute that petitioner's lands were not acquired for different Projects. 12. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish his legal right to seek the relief as prayed for in this petition. 13. The Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed.