State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Shivan Desai for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General who appears along with Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. The Octogenarian Petitioner questions the constitutional validity of the Goa (Allotment of Plots of Certain Displaced Persons) Act, 2016 (impugned Act) and acquisition of his property admeasuring 35,690.75 sq. mtrs. at Aquem, Salcete, Goa (said property) against the offered compensation of Rs. 1,37,052/-. The impugned Act is single-person legislation; it acquires only the Petitioner's property and not others. Accordingly, the Petitioner has applied for restoration of vacant and encumbrance-free possession of the said property. In the alternative, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the State to acquire the said property under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 (2013 Act) and/or pay compensation corresponding to the prevailing market value at the time of actual acquisition, i.e., as of 27.09.2016.

3. There is no dispute about the Petitioner being the owner of the said property. By Order dated 14.01.1964, the Administrator of the then Union Territory of Goa, Daman, and Diu requisitioned the said property under Section 2 9 of the DEFENCE OF INDIA ACT , 1962 for accommodating about 40 to 50 persons who were displaced due to the acquisition of their properties for establishment of 2 STC (3 Military Training Regiments) at Salcete, Goa. However, for a long time, i.e., up to 19.05.1991, even the compensation for such requisition was not determined.

4. On 19.05.1991, however, compensation of Rs. 54,662.68 was offered, but the same was never paid. This determination and offers were made under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (RAIP Act). The Petitioner has pleaded that he made some attempts to resolve the issue amicably. Still, after the same failed, the Petitioner instituted Special Civil Suit No.199/1993/A in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, seeking restoration of possession, among other things, on the ground that requisitioning cannot continue indefinitely. In the alternative, the Petitioner sought compensation from the Government.

5. The Special Civil Suit No.199/1993/A was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao vide Judgment and Decree dated 12.04.1999 on two preliminary grounds without touching the merits. First, the Suit was barred by limitation, and second, the Suit was barred under Section 19 of the RAIP Act.

6. The Petitioner appealed to this Court vide First Appeal No.102/1999. By Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2010, a division bench of this Court set aside the Trial Court's dismissal of the Suit and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for adjudication on merits. This Court held that the Suit was neither barred by limitation nor under Section 19 of the RAIP Act. However, taking cognizance of the amendment to the Goa Civil Courts Act, the Suit was transferred to the District Court and was re-registered as Civil Suit No.30/2010.

7. On remand, the District Judge dismissed Petitioner's application for deletion of the private defendants viz. defendant nos.4 to 39 and 41 to 68. However, this Court, by Order dated 24.11.2015, permitted such deletion, among other things, by holding that the main grievance of the Petitioner was against the Government's failure to de-requisition the said property despite the expiry of the maximum permissible requisition period of 17 years. Accordingly, the Suit is pending adjudication before the District Court.

8. During such pendency, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa passed the impugned Act to acquire only the Petitioner's property and no others. The impugned Act was assented to on 27.09.2016 and published in the Official Gazette on 29.09.2016. Section 3 (2) provides that the Government will pay the petitioner compensation as per the market value of such land as prevailing on the date of th