N.A. Britto, J.

Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the acquisition of land for the purpose of setting up a waste disposal plant for Respondent No.2-MMC initiated by notification dated 6-3-2008 issued under Section 17(1) dispensing an inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(Act, for short) and after filing of the petition, to the notification dated 30-6-2008 issued under Section 6 of the Act.

2. The Petitioner claims to be a tenant of the said property which belongs to the Comunidade of Cunchelim surveyed under no.8, sub-divisions 1 to 11 and No. 9, subdivisions 1 to 45, admeasuring about 32050 sq. meters.

3. The Petitioner had raised the issue of health hazards being created on account of setting up of the said waste disposal plant as well as non application of mind whilst granting the provisional authorization by Respondent No.3-Board. However, these issues have already been dealt with by this Court at the behest of the villagers of Cunchelim village in Writ Petition No.267/2008 by Judgment dated 30-1-2009.

4. The case of the Petitioner in this petition is restricted to invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the said Act and dispensation of an inquiry under Section 5A of the said Act.The case of the Petitioner is that the only protection given to a person whose land is sought to be acquired to convince the Acquiring Authority that the public purpose for which the land was to be acquired is in fact not a public purpose; that the land is not suitable for the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired; that there is alternate land available for the said land, etc. Further it is the case of the Petitioner that Section 5A affords two safe guards, namely, upon a receipt of objections, the Acquiring Authority is required to make an inquiry and submit a report to the appropriate Government which is to contain, inter alia, the recommendations on the objections filed by the objectors, and, the appropriate Government upon receipt of such report is once again required to consider the matter and take a decision thereon and for this purpose there has to be an application of mind by the appropriate Government. It is the case of the Petitioner that the valuable right afforded under Section 5A of the Act under the guise of urgency could not be dispensed with by the Respondents. The case of the Petitioner is that mere existence of urgency did not automatically authorize the Acquiring Authorities to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A which is akin to a fundamental right having regard to Article 300A of the Constitution of India and in any event the urgency was not of such a nature as to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. It is also the case of the Petitioner that Section 5A contains a valuable and important right having regard to the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution and has been held by the Apex Court to be a right akin to a fundamental right and as such urgency clause could be invoked only when there was real urgency where public interest did not brook even a minimum time to give a hearing. It is the case of the Petitioner that the urgency contemplated under Section 17 of such nature that if a power under Section 17 of the Act was not exercised the very purpose for which the land was acquired urgently would be frustrated or defeated. The Petitioner has stated that there was no real urgency involved in the present acquisition proceedings and assuming such urgency existed the same was not of such a nature as to dispense with the hearing and/or the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.

5. The petition hasbeen opposed by Respondent No.3-Board stating that it had received a letter from the attorney of the Comunidade of Assagao, Bardez suggesting the site for garbage treatment and as the Board was seized of the matter a Committee appointed by this Court inspected the site and after considering all the relevant facts and comments of the members of the said C