The court upheld that land acquisition for public purpose, as defined under the Land Acquisition Act, was valid despite petitioners' claims of private benefit and procedural violations.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash D. Naik, J.

The petitioners have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 15th June 2006 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; notification dated 1st December 2006 issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Award dated 12th April 2007 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Goa, Lease Deed dated 22nd May 2007 executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.4 in respect to acquired land. Petitioners are also seeking directions that, Respondent No.3 be directed to transfer the land back to the petitioners after terminating the lease dated 22nd May 2007.

2. The Petitioners contend that, the petitioner No.1 and 2 were co-wners of the property bearing survey Nos. 79/1, 80/1 and 80/3 of village Quitol, Quepem Taluka, South Goa admeasuring areas around 2,46,000/- m2 . The property originally belonged to grand-parents of Petitioner No.1. They were survived by son Antonio Xavier Fernandes, (father of petitioner No.1). Petitioner No.3 and 4 are co-owners of property bearing No. 80/1, 80/2 of village Quitol. The Petitioner No.5 is the co-owner of property bearing survey No.80/1 and 80/3 of village Quitol. Petitioner No.6 is claimed to be co-owner of the property survey Nos. 80/1 and 80/2 of village Quitol. The Petitioners are interested in the aforesaid properties which were acquired for setting up of auxiliary services for food park at Quitol, Quepem Goa, which was acquired by the Government of Goa vide notification dated 1st December 2006 bearing no.22/19/2006-RD issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Government of Goa invoked the provisions of section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and took symbolic possession of the land. Vide notification dated 15th June 2006 bearing No.22/19/2006-RD issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Government of Goa in exercise of its powers under Section 17(4) of the said Act, excluded the provisions of section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and dispensed with compliance of the same for the purpose of acquisition. The Petitioners and other affected land owners wanted to file strong objections to the land acquired by Government. However, by invoking urgency clause, the Goa Industrial Development Corporation (for short "GIDC") (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) has denied the right of villagers to file objections to the acquisition process. Notices were issued to the affected parties under sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act by Respondent No.2. Award dated 12th April 2007 was made by Respondent No.2.

3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted as under:-

(i) The acquisition was for private company and not for "public purpose" as defined under section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(ii) The acquisition was for private company i.e. the Respondent No.4. This was not disclosed in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The purpose for the acquisition was deliberately kept vague and the real purpose was concealed from the land owners and interested parties.

(iii) Compliance of section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act dispensed with valuable right of the land owners to object the acquisition was taken away though there was no dire urgency to proceed with the acquisition.

(iv) Since, the acquisition was for a company, it cannot be for a public purpose as defined under section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act. Procedure under sections 39 to 42 of the Land Acquisition Act were not followed. Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Act, 1963 were not complied.

(v) The acquisition of the land commenced with letter dated 24th November 2005 written by Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.3 requesting to acquire the land identified in Survey Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81 and 83 of Quitol and Survey Nos. 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 122 of Naquerim. The respondent No.4 also that, they were willing to sign the pre-acquisition agreement so that