1. By order dated 06/03/2013, notices were issued to the respondents by putting the parties to notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

2. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith.

4. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the award dated 27/02/2012 passed by respondent no.1 in Case No. XVI(6)DC(LA)/2008 and has prayed for a consequent direction to respondents no. 3 to 6 to return the money received by them under the impugned award with interest at the rate of 15 % p.a.

5. An area of 3000 square metres comprised in a quarry, falling in R-Zone, at Dona Paula and located opposite the British Cemetery, from Chalta No. 1(P) of P.T. Sheet No. 188 of City Survey, Panaji, recorded in the name of respondent no. 6, was notified by Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) for sanitary land fill site at Panaji for the petitioner. Notification under section 6 and 7 of the Act was published and subsequently, the notices under sections 9 and 10 of the Act were also issued. Individual notices were also served on the interested persons. Only two claims were received for compensation: one from the respondent no. 6 and the other from respondents no. 3, 4 and 5. The said respondents then submitted a joint application before the respondent no. 1 and prayed for apportionment of compensation in the proportion of 60% to the respondent no. 6 and the balance 40% to the respondents no. 3 to 5. An award was made and communicated to the petitioner. However, the respondent no. 7-Association, had filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 569/2010, challenging the said acquisition and the award, wherein they had offered to hand over the said area to the petitioner so that it can be used as a land fill site for non-biodegradable waste and be developed into a playground/park and then returned to them. The offer of respondent no. 7 was accepted by the petitioner and consequently, possession of the said area was handed over to the petitioner by the said Association, de hors the land acquisition process. As a consequence, the said Writ Petition No. 569/2010 was withdrawn by respondent no. 7 in the presence of the learned Counsel of respondents no. 3 to 6. A review filed by respondents no. 3 to 6 against the said order was rejected. As the possession was received by the petitioner from respondent no. 7, de hors the acquisition, respondent no. 7 requested the Government to withdraw from acquisition as a consequence of the letters of the petitioner dated 06/09/2010 and 09/03/2011. The Government exercised its powers under Section 48(1) of the Act and withdrew from acquisition vide notification dated 23/07/2012 bearing no. 22/23/2007-RD/3061 published in the newspaper namely Navhind Times dated 25/07/2012. The respondent no. 6 and the respondents no. 3 to 5 filed their claim for damages. The respondent no.1 took up the plea of respondents no. 3 to 6 for compensation under Section 48(2) of the Act. Respondent no.1 proceeded to pass the award dated 27/12/2012 which award was communicated to the petitioner on 08/01/2013 along with a letter dated 28/12/2012. The respondent no. 8, with whom the money was deposited by the petitioner, for acquisition, disbursed the awarded amount to respondents no. 3 to 6. The petitioner had not participated in the said proceedings under Section 48(2) of the Act.

6. According to the petitioner, no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner of any claim made by the respondents no. 3 to 6 nor was the petitioner given any opportunity of hearing by respondent no.1 at any time on the said plea of respondents no. 3 to 6, though the acquisition was for the benefit of the petitioner and the petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs towards the acquisition with respondent no. 8 and it was the petitioner, who had sought withdrawal o