ORDER :- The petitioner - Maria Silvio Rufina Clarisse Rebeiro e Miranda - seeks an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notification dated 25th July 1967 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17, and the notification dated 8th August 1967 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondents impleaded are the Union of India, the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, the Collector and Deputy Collector.

2. The case of the petitioner, as explained in the petition duly supported by an affidavit, is that she owns an open plot of land bearing survey no. 759/Part measuring 1956 square metres at Altinho, Panaji. This land is situated within the municipal limits of Panaji in what is eminently a residential area and commands a panoramic view of Panaji. There are residential buildings in the locality on either side of the land. The building adjacent to the land belongs to the brother-in-law of the petitioner, where he resides along with his family. The locality is well developed and the land is a valuable building site. The land is neither arable land nor waste land.

The State Government originally proposed to acquire a part of the land belonging to one Dr. V.N. Shirodkar of Bombay. This land is not very far from the land belonging to the petitioner and is ideally suited for the 'Microwave Project' under contemplation by the Government. Dr. Shirodkar is a personal friend of the Chief Minister of Goa, Daman and Diu, and it is because of this friendship that the State Government withdrew from the notification issued earlier under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

According to the petitioner, no reasonable person would honestly conclude that the land owned by her is better suited for the above project than that of Dr. Shirodkar. The State Government in issuing the notifications seeking to acquire the land owned by her misused the statutory powers vested in it. The opinion of the State Government as to the character of the land of the petitioner is mala fide. There has also been non-application of the mind. In relying upon the urgency provision under Section 17(4) of the Act, the petitioner was deprived of her valuable right of preferring objections under Section 5A of the Act. The public notice as contemplated by Section 4(1) was not given and its breach would render the notifications void. The notifications are also void because they are issued by the State Government and not by the Central Government. The "appropriate Government" for the purposes of Section 3(ee) of the Act is the Central Government and not the State Government. This, in broad, is the case of the petitioner.

3. The case of the respondents in the counter-affidavit sworn by the respondent Deputy Collector is that the vague statement that Dr. Shirodkar is a personal friend of the Chief Minister of Goa, Daman and Diu, and the vague apprehension that the alleged friendship between them weighed with the State Government in withdrawing from the proposed acquisition of the plot of land belonging to Dr. Shirodkar do not establish the allegation of mala fides. This plot was not considered suitable from technical point of view and therefore the Government withdrew from the proposed acquisition under the notification dated 20th May 1967. The opinion of the Government on suitability of the site proposed to be acquired is final and not justiciable. The two notifications seeking to acquire the land of the petitioner are in conformity with the provisions of the Act. It is denied that the land is situated within an "eminently residential area". It is admitted that near the land are All India Radio Station, Higher Secondary School, Goa Education Society's Commerce College and Meteorological Station. The Town Planning Committee has not given permission to the petitioner to raise construction on the land. The land of the petitioner is waste land. It was surveyed as such by the Dire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document