Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M. S. SONAK, M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
Dr. Agnelo Lopes and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Goa and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.99 of 2010
Decided On : 06-03-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Joseph Vaz with Mr. T. Vaz, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. P. Faldessai, Addl. Government Advocate, Mr. Nitin N. Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Ms. G. Kamat, Mr. S. Phadte and Mr. S. Sardessai, Advocates
The judgment establishes the importance of genuine public purpose in land acquisition, the need for strict compliance with the Circular dated 7th April, 2003, and the requirement for approval from the Town and Country Planning Department for road width and drainage provisions.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6 - Circular dated 7th April, 2003 - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The judgment discusses the challenge to a notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire property for the public purpose of road construction. The court examines the Circular dated 7th April, 2003, which outlines conditions for road access proposals, and emphasizes the need for strict compliance with the circular's instructions. The court highlights the significance of genuine public purpose in land acquisition and the requirement for approval from the Town and Country Planning Department for road width and drainage provisions. The judgment also addresses malafide intentions, the appointment of a Special Land Acquisition Officer, and the failure to address objections raised by the objectors. The court ultimately quashes the impugned notification, emphasizing the absence of genuine public purpose in the acquisition.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges a notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire property for road construction. The petitioners allege malafide initiation of the acquisition and absence of genuine public purpose. The Respondents argue that all procedures have been followed and there is no infirmity in the proposed acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the proposed acquisition lacks genuine public purpose and is initiated with malafide intentions. The court emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with the Circular dated 7th April, 2003, and the need for approval from the Town and Country Planning Department for road width and drainage provisions. The court also criticizes the appointment of a Special Land Acquisition Officer and the failure to address objections raised by the objectors. The court quashes the impugned notification.
Issues: The issues include the genuineness of the public purpose in the proposed acquisition, compliance with the Circular dated 7th April, 2003, malafide intentions, and the failure to address objections raised by the objectors.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment establishes the significance of genuine public purpose in land acquisition, the requirement for strict compliance with the Circular dated 7th April, 2003, and the need for approval from the Town and Country Planning Department for road width and drainage provisions. The court also emphasizes the importance of addressing objections raised by the objectors and criticizes the appointment of a Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Final Decision: The court quashes the impugned notification and makes the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
M. S. Jawalkar, J.
Heard, Mr. J. Vaz alongwith Mr. T. Vaz, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. N. Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. G. Kamat, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
2. The challenge in this petition is to the Notification dated 16th December, 2009 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act) proposing to acquire the Petitioners' property bearing survey Nos.9/14 and 9/20, Deussaua, Salcete Goa for the purported public purpose of construction of road at 2nd Palvem- Chinchinim under Survey Nos.9/5, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 in Village Panchayat of Chinchinim – Deussua in Salcete Taluka.
3. Mr. J. Vaz, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the proposed acquisition is initiated malafide at the instance of the Respondent No.5 and involves no public purpose whatsoever. He points out that the earlier acquisition in the same locality was dropped after an unfavourable Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act) report. Thereafter, this time, an officer from the Ministry that is headed by the Respondent No.5 was appointed as a Special Land Acquisition Officer. This officer has submitted a biased report without application of mind or taking into consideration the objections by at least five out of the alleged thirteen households who are alleged to be benefited by the acquisition and road proposed by the Respondent No.4-Panchayat.
4. Mr. Vaz submits that the proposed acquisition or rather its initiation, is in totally breach of the Government own Circular dated 7th April, 2003 as well as the NOC of the Town and Country Planning Department issued in pursuance of such Circular. He submits that at site, it is conceded, even in the biased Section 5A report that it is impossible to have a road of width of six metres. He submits that the alleged public purpose of linking two main roads is also not possible since, the proposed road ends at a nalla from where the Chinchinim- Orlim Bridge road is at a quite distance. He submits that the houses and the compound walls are bound to be damaged and this includes two ancestral heritage homes of the Petitioners, between whose houses the proposed road is to pass. He submits that all this establishes that there is no public purpose involved in the acquisition but that acquisition is initiated at the behest of the Respondent No.5, who is out to wreck vengeance against the Petitioners and other objectors for they declining to support him during the election.
5. For all the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Vaz submits that this petition is liable to be allowed and the detailed interim order made by this Court on 3rd May, 2010, made absolute.
6. Mr. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate refers to the affidavit of Pandharinath N. Naik, Under Secretary (Revenue) filed on 15th February, 2010 to submit that the acquisition is passed upon proposal of the Respondent No.4-Panchayat and therefore, involves public purpose. He submits that all procedures have been followed and there is no infirmity in the proposed acquisition. He therefore submits that this petition may be dismissed.
7. Mr. Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.4-Panchayat points out that in the year 1990 several residents from the locality including the Petitioners had demanded road in the locality. He submits that the allegations of malafides are totally vague and in any case baseless. He submits that only reason the interim relief granted was because this Court felt that the droppage of property bearing survey No.9/18A would provide no link to the main road, thereby frustrating public purpose. He points out that this droppage was an inadvertent error and subsequently the Government by issuing fresh Notification has also acquired this portion. He therefore submits that this petition is liable to be dismissed and the interim order vacated.
8. Mr. Sardessai submits that
