Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1383
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA BENCH
Valmiki Menezes, J
Secretary Department of Sainik Welfare – Appellant
Versus
Teofilo Monteiro – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 128 OF 2026 | WRIT PETITION NO. 127 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Devidas Pangam, Maria Correia
For the Respondents: Vishwesh Kamat
Under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Reference Court is mandatorily required to issue notice to all interested persons and the Collector to ensure a full and fair inquiry into the quantum of compensation, justifying the consolidation of related references to avoid conflicting awards.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged orders passed by a Referencing Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, asserting the mandatory requirement of impleading relevant stakeholders, including the Collector and previous interest-holders, in land acquisition references under Section 18. The Reference Court had erroneously dismissed an impleadment application by the petitioner. The core issues concern the scope of Section 20 of the Act and the necessity of consolidating related land acquisition cases involving overlapping tenurial claims. The court emphasized that Section 20 mandates the service of notice to all interested parties, including the Collector and any claimants alleging title to the property, to ensure a fair determination of market value and compensation. The Court quashed the impugned orders, directed the impleadment of necessary parties, ordered the transfer of proceedings for consolidation, and stayed the reference until the pending Tenancy Revision was adjudicated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance and preliminary hearing of the writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of the land acquisition dispute and the contested impleadment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. mandatory nature of section 20 notices in referencing proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. consolidation of related references for judicial consistency. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. order for transfer, stay of proceedings, and final disposal of petitions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
ORAL JUDGMENT:
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 is the Applicant; the Applicant has raised objections to the quantum of compensation offered under the Awar
