JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. Heard Adv. Iyer holding for Adv. Mohogaonkar for petitioners. Learned AGP for respondents. 2. Challenge in Writ Petition is, to show-cause notice dated 15-3-2002. Operation and effect of that show-cause notice is stayed by this Court while issuing notice on 20-6-2002 and the same was continued while admitting the matter. 3. The petitioner No. 1 before this Court is father of petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 has secured Government employment as Project-affected person and has been appointed as a Peon on 27-10-1995 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Gosekhurd Project, Paoni. 4. By impugned show-cause notice, he has been called upon to explain why action should not be taken against him for practising fraud. In show-cause notice, his attention is invited to the fact that though land in excess of 1 Hectare (‘H’) was left with him after acquisition, mentioning the extent of land left only to be 0.37H and also suppressing employment with Government already available, the petitioner secured job as Project-affected person in 1995. 5. During hearing, learned AGP has submitted that show-cause notice for suppressing employment with Government /Public organization appears to be erroneous and hence is not being pressed into service. Thus, the only question before this Court is, whether petitioner can be said to have misrepresented by pointing that land left with him was only 0.37 H and therefore less than 1H. Provision in policy that if such land with family is 1H or more, family is not entitled to benefit of employment, is not in dispute. Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 contains this norm. 6. During hearing, it appears that speaking order was passed by Division Bench of this Court on 10-8-2017 and Court has noted that dispute was regarding production of document at Annexure R-2 along with affidavit dated 17-3-2009. The petitioner was permitted to place his response on record. It appears that on 6-11-2017, this Court has taken note of fact that petitioners were permitted to file their reply in the office of respondent No. 2-District Rehabilitation Officer on 21-8-2017. The respondent No. 2 was to hear petitioner and pass suitable orders by 6-10-2017. Accordingly, though petitioner filed his reply before that authority, orders were not passed thereafter by it. The respondent No. 2 was to hear petitioner and pass suitable orders by 6-10-2017. Accordingly, though petitioner filed his reply before that authority, orders were not passed thereafter by it. It appears that till then fact of passing orders by respondent No. 2 has not been brought on record either by petitioner or by respondents. Adv. Iyer has, in fact, sought an adjournment as Adv. Mohogaonkar is not available to throw light on this omission. 7. The contention that family is having land in excess of 1H is based upon the ownership of two lands i.e. Gut Nos. 134 and 180 with the family. Gut No. 134 was earlier admeasuring 0.96H and Gut No. 180 admeasures 1.94 H. Out of Gut No. 134, 0.59H land has been acquired and, therefore, only 0.37H portion is left with family. Insofar as Gut No.180 is concerned, its area is intact i.e. 1.98 H. If both the lands are taken together, with joint family, the total holding is 2.35 H. 8. The petitioners have submitted that there has been partition in the family and hence their family is holding only 0.37 H. Learned AGP attempts to demonstrate that the story of partition is not borne out from revenue records. 9. Material on record shows that the grandfather of petitioner No. 2 and father of petitioner No. 1 was having Gut Nos. 134 and 180 admeasuring together 2.94H. The Deputy Collector(Rehabilitation)/respondent No. 2 has in his order passed on 6th October, 2017 which has been produced on record as part of affidavit tendered on 10th November, 2017, pointed out this fact. Said authority thereafter mentions that this land was divided into three brothers, two sisters and mother. He has taken note of contention of petitioner that his branch got Gut No. 134 while other coparceners got Gut No.180. Petitioners produced before that authority entry of partition taken by Talathi. In the light of this contention, the respondent No. 2 has observed that record with Talathi, Khaksi does not show any partition. Because of acquisition and construction of canal, Gut No. 134 has been sub-divided into two parts i.e. 134/1 and 134/2. He has concluded that total land available with family after this acquisition was 1.98H plus 0.37H and, therefore, it was in excess of 1H. Hence, the earlier action of cancelling project affected certificate of petitioner has been found to be proper. 10. He has concluded that total land available with family after this acquisition was 1.98H plus 0.37H and, therefore, it was in excess of 1H. Hence, the earlier action of cancelling project affected certificate of petitioner has been found to be proper. 10. We do not wish to go into the correctness or otherwise of the assertions regarding partition. Petitioner No. 1-Kundlik has two brothers, namely, Mahadeo and Khushal. Similarly, at the time of death of his father in 1964-65, mother of Kundlik was alive. Kundlik also has two sisters namely, Satyabhama and Kachari. 11. The fact that lands needed to be partitioned or should be partitioned cannot be disputed. Hence, at the time of death of father of Kundlik (grandfather of petitioner No. 2), there were three coparceners and mother also is entitled to equal share. Hence after acquisition as there are two daughters and they inherit the share of their father, division of joint fields into five parts becomes essential. Therefore, total area admeasuring 2.35H is required to be sub-divided into five parts and each part therefore roughly works out to 0.47H. Father of petitioner No. 2 namely Kundlik, may get additional about 0.9H out of separated share of his father, his share may be 0.56 H. If there has to be further partition in branch of petitioner No. 1 Kundlik, share of petitioner No. 2 would be definitely less than 1.0.37 H. 12. Hence, taking overall view of the matter, we do not find anything wrong with claim of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 that they do not have land in excess of 1H and, therefore, are eligible for grant of status as project affected person. It is not the case of respondents that any other family member has received job with it as project affected person. 13. In view of this finding, we quash and set aside the show-cause notice dated 15-3-2002 and also consequential order passed by respondent No. 2. The Writ Petition is thus allowed and disposed of. No costs. Petition allowed.