ORDER :- This is a petition under Art.228 of the Constitution filed on behalf of the petitioner Jose Joaquim Sebastino Rodrigues and 12 other petitioners. The prayer is that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act be quashed by a writ of certiorari and/or any other like writ or direction, etc., as they are illegal.

2. The respondents impleaded to the petitioner are (1) The Union Government; (2) the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu; and 3. the Mamlatdar and Administrator-in-Charge, Mormugao Taluka.

3. There is a large tract of land in Mormugao Taluka. A part of that land measuring about 1500 acres was considered suitable by the respondent (1) for the purposes of Navy and, accordingly, the respondent (2), was asked to acquire it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 11th November, 1965. The petitioners objected to the proposed acquisition. Before their objections could be heard and report submitted by the Collector to the respondent (2) as required by section 5-A, the respondent (2) published the second notification in the Government Gazette on 25th August 1966, in terms of section 17 (4) dispensing with the inquiry by the Collector under this section. The third notification under section 6 read with S. 17 (1) was published in the Government Gazette on 13th October, 1966. Before possession of the land sought to be acquired could be taken the petitioners filed the petition objecting to the acquisition of the land on various grounds. This, in short, is the background of the case.

4. The following questions arise for consideration on the basis of the affidavits and counter affidavit sworn by the petitioners and the Collector :-

1. Whether the petitioners are guilty of suppressio veri when they omitted from the petition reference to section 17 (4) notification;

2. whether a joint petition by the petitioner (1) and other petitioners is maintainable;

3. whether the petitioners (1) and (3) are barred from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution because of the restrictions imposed under sections 9, 72 and 75 of the Code of Comunidade;

4. whether the petitioners have locus standi to file the petition;

5. Whether the notifications by the State Government are bad in law on the ground that they are not issued by the Central Government as an 'appropriate Government':

6. whether the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 suffer from the defect of vagueness and, therefore, inoperative; and

7. Whether action under section 17 to legally justified.

5. I shall deal these questions 'seriatim'. Are the petitioners guilty of 'suppressio veri' as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the Collector on behalf of the respondents? It is common ground that the petition does not refer to section 17 (4) notification published on 25th August 1966. According to Shri Tamba, learned Government Pleader this omission was deliberate. Shri Ayengar, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the petitioners had no knowledge of this notification and, therefore, the omission is bona fide. This plea is taken in the rejoinder-affidavit. It need hardly be emphasised that in writ proceedings where extraordinary relief is sought the petitioners are expected to act in a fair manner. They must approach the Court with clean hands. The material facts having a bearing on the relief sought should be disclosed in the petition without mental reservations. They may be against the petitioners but that is no reason why they should be withheld from the Courts. The withholding of information, suppressio veri, is generally not fraudulent unless there is a special duty to disclose it. In writ proceedings the petitioners are under a special duty to disclose material facts known to them. It is not the case of the respondents that reference to the notification was omitted in order to obtain an interim relief

Click Here to Read the rest of this document