Majmudar, J.

The petitioner who has been granted a Mining Lease on 13.12.1968 under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is challenging in this writ petition the land acquisition proceedings taken out by the State Government for acquiring the land, in question, for the Goa Industrial Development Corporation, respondent No. 4. A proposal in this connection was sent by respondent No. 4 acquiring body to the State Government for establishing an Industrial Estate/Food Park at Quitol Village of Quepem Taluka. For the purpose of acquiring the said land, the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 14.6.2006 by the Revenue Department, Government of Goa. Initially, urgency clause was applied by resorting to the provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner has annexed the Mining Lease which is at page 144 of the paper book.

2. The petitioner before filing of the present petition, had earlier approached this Court by way of a writ petition, challenging the application of urgency clause by the State Government. Ultimately, the urgency clause was withdrawn and the petitioner was permitted to lodge his objections as per Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his objections to the proposed acquisition by submitting a detailed representation in this behalf. Subsequent to that, Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 15.5.2008 and thereafter, an award was also declared and possession has also been obtained by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) from the petitioner. Before the SLAO the petitioner claimed that his claim before the SLAO was subject to his rights and contentions in this petition. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the said acquisition proceedings on various grounds.

3. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out to the Court that there is a dispute between the owner of the land and the petitioner and in this regard, reference has been made to the District Court by the SLAO under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition. He submitted that the petitioner, however, participated in the said proceedings, subject to his rights and contentions and without prejudice to his contentions in this writ petition to the effect that since the application for renewal was pending the land in question could not have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that initially the mining lease was granted to the petitioner, after obtaining consent of the Central Government and the lease was initially granted for a period of 30 years by an Order dated 13.12.1968. After expiry of the said period, the petitioner had applied for renewal of the said lease before the expiry of the lease period and well within time, but, it seems that no decision has been taken on the said application and, therefore, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and more particularly Rule 24-A, the period of lease is deemed to have been extended for a further period as the application for renewal was already submitted before the expiry of the lease period. It is next submitted that the lease, in question, can be said to have been extended by the deeming provision under the said Rules. He next submitted that the SLAO has not considered the objections of the petitioner properly as there are other lands available for the said purpose, other than the land in question. The acquisition of the land, in question, is challenged on the following grounds :

(i) That the petitioner has been granted the mining lease for the purpose of excavating mines and minerals and originally, the lease was granted with the sanction of the Central Government and, therefore, it is not open to the State to acquire the land in question without consulting the Central Government in this behalf.

(ii) The acqui