Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare, Panaji – Appellant
Versus
Teofilo J. Monteiro S/o Jose Mario Monteiro – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 127, 128 of 2026
Decided On : 18-02-2026
For the Appellants : Devidas Pangam, Maria Correia
For the Respondent: Vishwesh Kamat
Reference Court must mandatorily implead persons interested in tenancy-based compensation objections and Collector under Section 20 of Land Acquisition Act to ensure proper determination of market value and title.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18, 19, 20 - Reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation based on agricultural tenancy claim - Reference Court must mandatorily issue notice to applicant, all persons interested in objection (including original occupants against whom tenancy claimed), and Collector where objection to quantum of compensation - Provisions mandatory as held by Supreme Court - Dismissal of impleadment application set aside. (Paras 8,9)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 24 - Multiple references under Sections 18 and 30 involving identical tenancy claims over portions of same survey holding - Transfer to single court directed to avoid conflicting awards on title and apportionment. (Para 14)
(C) Evidence Act - Witness examination - Ill-health of witness not valid ground to direct substitution if witness competent and facts within knowledge - Order directing change of witness set aside. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Writ petitions under Article 227 assailing orders in Section 18 reference proceedings where claimant seeks compensation on basis of tenancy title - Acquiring department's impleadment application of recorded occupants and Collector dismissed holding parties unconnected to reference - Further orders rejecting stay application and directing witness change on medical grounds.
Findings of Court:
Impugned orders quashed and set aside; recorded occupants impleaded as Respondent No. 2 and Collector as Respondent No. 3; all related references transferred to single court; Section 18 proceedings stayed pending decision on tenancy revision.
Issues: Whether impleadment of interested parties and Collector mandatory under Section 20; necessity to consolidate related proceedings to avert conflicts; validity of orders on stay and witness examination.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 20 mandates impleadment and notice to enable full inquiry into compensation claims, particularly tenancy-based ones requiring participation of original occupants; consolidation and stay warranted where tenancy title sub-judice to ensure consistent outcomes. Result : Rule made absolute; writ petitions disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural initiation and final hearing of writs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of land acquisition reference and impleadment denial. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. mandatory impleadment under section 20 la act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. pending related tenancy and apportionment proceedings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. impleadment, transfer, and clubbing of la cases. (Para 14) |
| 6. stay pending tenancy revision finality. (Para 15) |
| 7. witness change order untenable; proceedings stayed. (Para 16) |
| 8. rule absolute; petitions disposed with directions. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.
2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith; at the request of and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Advocate General Mr. Devidas Pangam, appears on behalf of the Petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Vishwesh Kamat waives service on behalf of the Respondent.
4. Writ Petition No. 128/2026 is seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 18.09.2025 passed on Exhibit D-48 (an application for impleadment of the parties) in Land Acquisition Case No. 9/2011. The impugned order has been passed by the Adhoc-District Judge-2, North Goa at Merces.
5. Writ Petition No. 127/2026 seeks to assail order dated 06.12.2025 passed on Exhibit D-57 (an application for stay of the Land Acquisition proceedings) and Roznama orders dated 16.01.2026 and 28.01.2026 in Land Acquisition Case No. 9/2011.
6. The aforementioned Land Acquisition Case is before the District Court on a reference made under Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. The Respondent in this petition is arrayed as Applicant before the Reference Court, and claims title to the acquired land on the basis of a claim of Agricultural Tenancy under the Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. After receipt of the reference, the Reference Court has impleaded Sainik Welfare Department (Petitioner before me) as a sole Respondent, on the premise that the land has been acquired for the use of the Petitioner herein.
7. The Petitioner herein moved an application seeking impleadment of the Communidade of Bambolim, whose name is in the occupants column of the Survey Records of the acquired land (Survey No. 92/1 (part) of village Bambolim) and also sought impleadment of the Communidade of Bambolim, CPWD (the department that has constructed a structure on another part of Survey No. 92/1 in pursuance of an earlier acquisition) and the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, who had instituted the Acquisition Proceedings and passed an Award with respect to the acquired land. It is this application which is at Exhibit 48 of the record of the Reference Court that has been dismissed. The main reason for the dismissal of the application, as stated in the impugned order, is that the proceeding is with respect to Section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT at the behest of the Applicant Mr. Teofilo Monteiro, and the parties sought to be impleaded by the Petitioner have nothing to do with the reference.
8. The impugned order dated 18.09.2025 must be set aside for the following reasons:
(a) On a reference being received by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act, along with the Collector’s statement to the Court under Section 19 of the Act, it is the duty of the Reference Court to issue notice to the persons stated in Section 20 thereof. Amongst these, notice is bound to be issued to the Applicant, to all persons interested in the objection and, in the event the objection is in regard to the area of the land or on the amount of compensation, also to the Collector.
(b) The provision of Section 20 , therefore, make it mandatory for the Reference Court to issue notice to the Applicant and to any other persons who are interested in objecting to the compensation, which in this case
