Point of Law: Land Acquisition – Land acquired for public purpose - Government own circular – Validity of - circular makes it clear that when it comes to proposal for acquisition of road access, the acquiring department should ensure that atleast 20 households should be benefited for 4 metres wide road with length of less than 200 metres. Here the 6 metre wide road is proposed and there is objection that only one household will be benefited. It appears that said acquisition will not serve public purpose but private interest at the cost of Government Exchequer. This is not the way in which the Special Land Acquisition Officer have dealt with serious objections raised by objector based inter alia on the Government own circular – Hence quash and set aside impugned Notification under Section 4 of Act and Notification under Section 6 of Act as also report under Section 5A.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Jawalkar, J.

Heard Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. T. Sequeira, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent-State.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the Notification dated 21st March, 2013 issued under Section 4 and the Notification dated 21st April, 2014 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the said Act ) proposing to acquire 345 m2 of the Petitioner No.1 property bearing survey Nos.121/2 of Village Betalbatim, Salcete, Goa, 65m2 and 55m2 of the plots of the petitioner No.2 bearing survey No. 121/4 and 121/6 respectively and 75 m2 and 15m2 of Survey No. 121/5 and Survey No. 121/7 respectively of the plots belonging to the petitioner No.3 for the purported public purpose of construction of road at Thonwado, Bhimwado, Gonsua in Betalbatim village (Addl. Area) of Salcete Taluka.

3. Upon coming to know of the Notification under Section 4 the petitioners filed their objections to the proposed acquisition under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act'). By the said objection following contentions were raised that the proposed acquisition was not in the public interest but was intended to serve private interest of one Mrs. Ramila Cecilia Gerson Rebelo e Barros, wife of Mr. Agnelo Regis Barros, who was an Assistant Engineer attached Public Works Department, Fatorda, Margao.

4. That there was not a single house standing alongside the proposed road. That the proposed road would pass along the cultivable low line paddy field and in the process it would create an ecological disaster in the area as the said road was proposed in ecosensitive area, as proposed in the regional plan of village Betal Batim, Salcete Taluka

5. It was pointed out by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner Shri Lotlikar that while recommending the land of the petitioners for construction of the road as proposed the Land Acquisition Officer had stated that the same was required in order to complete filling of a gap between the existing road and the land already acquired and in the possession of the acquiring department and would also benefit the public who residing in the locality. While strongly recommending dropping of the proposed acquisition of the property bearing survey no. 157/10([part) 157/11(part) of village Betalbatim the LAO referred to a “Note” received from Francisco Xavier Pacheco, the MLA of the Goa Legislative Assembly dated 05/07/2013 stating that the stretch of the road passing through the said plot did not serve the public purpose, and in fact was contrary to the circular bearing No. 22/17/2001-RD(LA) dated 07/04/2003 issued by the Revenue Department. As such LAO recommended to drop acquisition in respect of several survey numbers mentioned in the Notification under Section 4 on the ground that it did not serve any public purpose and he recommended to acquire the land of the petitioners for construction of the proposed road.

6. It is submitted that both the Notifications will cause great prejudice to the petitioners if the same are allowed to stand. It is submitted that Notification under Section 4 published in the official gazette on 28/03/2013 and notice was issued on 16/04/2013. In view of the matter the Notification under Section 6 published in the official gazette on 24/04/2014 is beyond the period of one year. However, this submission was not pressed. It is seen that public notice was issued on 16/04/2013 and the same was published on the Notice Boards of the Mamlatdar of Salcete and Village Panchayat of Betalbatim and the site in question on 03/05/2013 and Notification under Section 6 issued on 21/04/2014, which appears to be within one year from last publication.

7. It is further the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the said Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 are vitiated as they constitute colourable exercise of power of acquisitio