Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 2106
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
S.J. VAZIFDAR & U.V. BAKRE, JJ.
Vinayak Bhaskar Sinai Dhume
Versus
State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary & Others
Writ Petition No. 212 of 2002
Decided on : 05-11-2012
For the Petitioner:M.S. Sonak & J. Supekar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, D. Lawande Govt. Advocate, R3, S.G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Shelke, Advocate.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227. - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4(1) and 11 - Writ petition.
Petitioner seeking of writ of certiorari to quash notifications dated 7.4.1999 and 7.2.2000 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Act and an Award dated 12.1.2001 - Petitioner also sought restoration of possession - Contends that he not raised any objection to proposed acquisition as to was unaware of entire acquisition proceedings since his name was not mentioned in either of notification despite no objected previous proceedings for acquisition of said property - Possession handed over to acquiring body on 17.4.2001 and to society on 30.4.2001 - Petition filed on 3.5.2002 after proceedings concluded and land stood vested in Government on 25.11.2002 - Interim order granted, restraining society from in any carrying out construction on said plot pending hearing and final disposal of petition - Petitioner challenged very justification of Authorities in view of non-compliance of Section 7 of Act an that proceedings are void as acquisition was not for a public purpose but for private benefit of respondent 3, a private society - Held - Petitioner failed to establish any cogent reason for delay in filing writ petition - Petition liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches alone - Interim order dated 25. 11.2002 shall continue upto 15.1.2013 - Petition dismissed.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6 and 16 - Land acquisition proceedings.
Failure of petitioner to establish any cogent reason for delay in filing writ petition challenging acquisition proceedings, renders petition liable to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches. - The nature of his procedure is of vital importance in view of the petitioner’s allegation that he is a tenant of the property and that he has been in possession thereof. There is a dispute between the petitioner and one Mulgaonkar who also claims to be the tenant. Proceedings are pending in this regard before the Mamlatdar. What is, however, important is that the petitioner’s case is that he was always in possession and continues to be in possession. It is, in fact, contended even in this petition that the possession has not been handed over despite the said certificate of possession which is referred to earlier.
The petitioner has not established that the contents of the award and the said certificate are false. There is nothing on record that persuades, leave alone, entitles us to disbelieve the same. The contents are true that the procedure involved, inter alia, about the activities, was followed.
If the petitioner was in possession, at least at the material time, it is impossible that he would not be aware of the acquisition proceedings which involved visiting the site and physically dealing with the property. For instance, and as stated in the award, the land had been surveyed and demarcated with boundary stones; after the requisite notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued and questionnaires were supplied, a site inspection was carried out in order to ascertain the area to be acquired and the site inspection was carried out in presence of the representatives of the acquiring department. As evidenced by the certificate of possession, possession of the land, trees and the structure was taken over on 17th April, 2001 at 10.30 a.m. Subsequently, possession of the land, trees and the structure had been taken over by the acquiring department, viz. Registrar of Cooperative Societies from the Additional Deputy Collector (LAO). Thereafter, on 30th April, 2001, possession was handed over by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the Chairman of the Society as evidenced by the Certificate dated 3rd of the April, 2001.
It is impossible to believe that the petitioner who claims to have been in possession throughout, would not have noticed all these activities and would have been unaware of the same. The activities, unlike the issuance/publication of notices, are carried out physically at site.
In the circumstances, the petitioner has been unable to establish any cogent reasons for the delay in filing this writ petition after the award was made and possession was taken and the entire proceedings stood concluded, including handing over possession of the property to the Society-respondent No. 3.
S.J. Vazifdar, J.
1. The petitioner alleges that he is the tenant of the land sought to be acquired. The landlord, the Comunidade of Mapusa and another party who also alleges to be the tenant of the land, have not challenged the acquisition.
2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Under Secretary (Revenue), Government of Goa and The Bardez Bazar Consumer Cooperative Society (hereinafter, referred to as “the Society”), respectively.
3. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash notifications dated 7th April, 1999 and 7th February, 2000 issued under the Land Acquisition Act and an Award dated 12th January, 2001. The petitioner has also sought restoration of possession in the event of it being found that the possession was in fact taken.
4. The respondents raised two preliminary objections. Although we heard the matter on two other issues as well, we are of the opinion that one of the preliminary objections is well founded and the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. We, therefore, restrict this judgment to the preliminary objections.
5. It was contended that the petitioner has no locus standi, as he has not established his rights as a tenant in respect of the land that is sought to be acquired. The second preliminary objection, which we have upheld, is that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings, inter-alia, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court. Even if it does not constitute a preliminary objection in the strict sense, if it is well founded, it would entail a dismissal of the petition irrespective of our findings on the other issues.
6. The objection on the ground of delay is this. This petition is the first step the petitioner has taken to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Over a year before that, the entire proceedings for acquisition, including the taking over of possession and the handing over of the same to the acquiring body-respondent No.3, stood concluded. On facts, we find that the petitioner in all probability, was aware of the proceedings. In any event, the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay in filing this petition after the award was made and possession was taken. In view of the consistent views in such cases, especially of the Supreme Court, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the fact that even prior to the present acquisition proceedings, the said land was sought to be acquired. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 12th November, 1996. It is stated that the land was likely to be needed for the public purpose of construction for the Society. The petitioner and the landlord filed objections to the same. The petitioner filed his objections by a letter dated 23rd December, 1996. No notification under Section 6 was issued and the proceedings accordingly lapsed.
8(A). Thereafter, the present proceedings commenced by issuance of a notification under Section 4 dated 7th April, 1999. This notification also states that the land was likely to be needed for the public purpose for construction of a market for the Society.
(B). A notification under Section 6 was, thereafter, issued on 7th April, 2000. The petitioner did not raise any objection even at this stage.
9. The petitioner contends that he did not raise an objection to the proposed acquisition as he was unaware of the same. He in fact claims to have been unaware of the entire acquisition proceedings. We will deal with this important issue of fact later. Suffice it note at this stage that the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the fact that his name was not mentioned in either of the notifications, despite the fact that he had objected to the previous proceedings for the acquisition of the said property.
10. The award was made on 12th January, 2001. The contents of the award
