JUDGMENT : S.C. Gupte, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.P. for the State. 2. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of counsel. 3. The petitioner challenges an order passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer ("D.R.O.") purportedly under Section 16(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 ("PPA Act"). The application before the D.R.O. was for grant of land to respondent No. 3, who was a project affected person, whilst the petitioner herein, who was a landowner in the benefited zone, was an objector before the D.R.O. The impugned order rejects his objections and proceeds in the matter of deciding the price at which the land is to be compulsorily purchased. This order was followed by an order passed on 25th July, 2014, by which the price of the land to be allotted to the eligible affected person was fixed at Rs. 5,75,716/. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the D.R.O. has proceeded to reject the petitioner's objections and determine the price of the land to be allotted to respondent No. 3 (the eligible affected person) without there being any acquisition under Section 14 of the PPA Act read with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act ("LA Act"). 4. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of Field Survey No. 581/4 ad measuring 2 Hectors 61 R of Mouje Ralegaon Part 2, Taluka Ralegaon, District Yavatmal. This field along with the other field held by the petitioner ad measures a total area of about 4 Hectors 1 R. (The two fields originally had a total area of 6 Hectors 42 R, out of which 1 Hector 27 R was sold by the petitioner.) These fields come under the benefited zone of the Bembla Project. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the D.R.O. by publishing a notice dated 8th May, 2014 declared that the land ad measuring 2 Hectors and 61 R forming part of the petitioner's fields, required for the purpose of rehabilitation under the provisions of Section 14(1) and (2) of the PAP Act, was to be allotted to respondent No. 3, who is an affected person in the same project. The notice indicated that respondent No. 3 had offered to purchase the said land at its market value, stated to be Rs. 4,36,000/. The notice indicated that respondent No. 3 had offered to purchase the said land at its market value, stated to be Rs. 4,36,000/. The petitioner submitted his objections to this declaration. The petitioner was thereafter called for a hearing and heard by the D.R.O. One of the main contentions of the petitioner before the D.R.O. was that the land was yet to be acquired or purchased by the Collector under Section 14 of the PAP Act and accordingly, there was no question of grant of this land to any affected person under Section 16(1)(a) of the PAP Act. By his order 15th July, 2014, the D.R.O. rejected all objections of the petitioner. The D.R.O. accepted the fact that the land was yet to be acquired or purchased under Section 14 of the PAP Act. The D.R.O., however, treated this defect as merely cosmetic in nature and a matter of oversight. The D.R.O., thereafter, proceeded by a separate order passed on 25th July, 2014 to fix the market price of the subject land at Rs. 5,75,716/, requiring respondent No. 3 as eligible affected person to deposit that amount. These orders are challenged in the present petition. 5. The scheme of the PAP Act makes it clear that in respect of a project to which the PAP Act applies, the Commissioner of the revenue division, in which entire or major part of the project lies, shall by notification specify the village, or areas, if any, which are likely to be affected or benefited by the project. After the village, or areas, as the case may be, are notified, there are restrictions on their transfer. These restrictions are contained in Section 12 of the PAP Act. The restrictions inter alia prohibit transfers of the lands in the benefited zone in the particular village or area, as the case may be, except with the permission of the Commissioner. Under Section 13 of the PAP Act, as soon as may be practicable, the Collector is required to give a public notice inviting objections or suggestions in respect of lands within his district falling within the affected or benefited zones. The objections or suggestions submitted in response are thereafter considered by the Collector. Under Section 13 of the PAP Act, as soon as may be practicable, the Collector is required to give a public notice inviting objections or suggestions in respect of lands within his district falling within the affected or benefited zones. The objections or suggestions submitted in response are thereafter considered by the Collector. The Commissioner thereafter has to declare the extent of areas which shall constitute the affected zone and which shall constitute the area of the benefited zone under the project, if the project is an irrigation project. This declaration must also provide for the particular slab/slabs that ought to apply for determining the excess land from out of the holding for the purpose of acquisition. (The Schedule to the PPA Act provides for size wise area to be acquired from out of holdings in the benefited zone.) Once this is done, under Section 14 of the PAP Act, it is permissible to the Commissioner, or the Collector authorised by him, to acquire land from any holding in the benefited zone of the project according to the slab declared in the notification under Subsection (1) of Section 13 of the PAP Act. The land acquired under Section 14 through the various means provided there under, namely, acquisition from the benefited zone, acquisition of any land required for carrying out the purposes of the PAP Act, and compulsory acquisition under the L.A. Act, form part of a land pool and the Collector is then empowered under Section 16 of the PAP Act to grant any land from this land pool to an eligible affected person, who is desirous of getting such land. This scheme clearly implies that before any land, as part of the land pool, is granted to any eligible affected person, it has to be acquired by the Commissioner, or the Collector empowered by him in that behalf. Acquisition of land under Section 14, thus, is a prerequisite, which must necessarily precede the grant of land under Section 16(1)(a). 6. It is seen from the record of the present case that the petitioner's land comes within the benefited zone of the Bembla project and having been declared as such, it is subject to the restrictions provided for under Section 12 of the PAP Act. 6. It is seen from the record of the present case that the petitioner's land comes within the benefited zone of the Bembla project and having been declared as such, it is subject to the restrictions provided for under Section 12 of the PAP Act. The petitioner's application for permission to sell 4 Hectors and 4 R out of his total holding of 6 Hectors and 43 R to the Collector of Yavatmal, which is termed by respondent No. 3 as the former's admission of acquisition of the remaining land under Section 14 of the PAP Act, is actually an application for permission for sale of the land within the slab under Section 12 of the PAP Act. Whereas it does indicate that the balance part of the holding could be acquired under Sub-Section (4) of Section 14 in accordance with slab declared in the notification under Subsection (1) of Section 13, it still does not imply actual acquisition under Subsection (4) of Section 14. In fact, it appears to be an admitted position (even the State confirms this position at the hearing of this petition) that the land being the subject matter of the present petition has not stood acquired at any time under Subsection (4) of Section 14. Even in his impugned order the D.R.O., in terms, accepts this position, when he says that "as is clear, the land is yet to be acquired or purchased". If the land is not acquired or purchased as of date, as noticed above, there is no question of allotting it to any eligible affected person. The D.R.O. appears to treat the want of acquisition or purchase under Section 14 as a mere cosmetic defect. That is clearly incorrect. It is a defect, which goes to the root of the matter, and undermines the very power of the Collector to grant the land to any affected person including respondent No. 3. It is only that land, which is acquired under Section 14, which can be granted to an eligible person under Section 16(1)(a) and no other land. 7. The foregoing discussion leaves no manner of doubt that the entire approach of the D.R.O. is vitiated by a serious error of law. The impugned orders, accordingly, cannot be sustained and will have to be set aside. 8. 7. The foregoing discussion leaves no manner of doubt that the entire approach of the D.R.O. is vitiated by a serious error of law. The impugned orders, accordingly, cannot be sustained and will have to be set aside. 8. Before concluding the order, it bears a mention that this Court finds it rather strange that despite the land being declared to be in the benefited zone and despite the petitioner holding excess land, which is to be subjected to levy in accordance with the slab determined by the State under Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the PAP Act, the State has not taken any steps under Section 14 of the Act to either purchase or compulsorily acquire the land in terms of Section 14 of the PAP Act. It is expected that the respondent State will take corrective measures and proceed under Section 14 for purchase/acquisition of the subject land. In case the land is purchased/acquired by the State under Section 14 of the PAP Act, such land shall be allotted to respondent No. 3, particularly in view of the fact that he has been misled into depositing the entire value of the land, namely, Rs. 5,75,716 and has proceeded to do so. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute and the petition is disposed in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.