Partly allowed

Shri Laurente v. Fernandes and 2 Ors., v State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2012WP/439/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court quashed the Section 6 notification and directed the LAO to consider Section 5A objections and circular guidelines, while keeping the Section 4 challenge open.

What did the court decide?

Notification dated 22nd March, 2011 under Section 6 is quashed; LAO directed to consider objections and guidelines; Section 4 challenge kept open.

Shri Laurente v. Fernandes and 2 Ors., Vs State of Goa… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.439 of 2011

¶4

1.	Shri Laurente V. Fernandes,
	major of age, resident of H.No.10/B, Manzo, Verna, Salcete-Goa
2.	Smt. Conceicao Fernandes, major of age, resident of H.No.10/B, Manzo, Verna, Salcete-Goa
3.	Mrs. Zita Perira, Major of age, widow of Lourence Pereira, r/o. H. No.296, Manzo, Verna, Salcete- Goa ..	Petitioners.
	V e r s u s
1.	State of Goa, Through its Chief Secretary, Having office at Secretariat, Alto Porvorim, Bardez Goa
2.	Under Secretary Revenue -II, State of Goa, Having office at Secretariat, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.
3.	The Special Land Acquisition Officer(s), Gogol, Margao- Goa.
4.	Smt. Rosa Fernandes, Major of age, w/o Minguel Fernandes, resident of Manzo, Verna, Salcete-Goa.
5.	Smt. Leucadia Fernandes Major of age, w/o J. Fernandes,

¶5

¶6

resident of Manzo Verna, Salcete- Goa.

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE &

¶11

U. V. BAKRE,JJ

¶12

Date : 16th January, 2012

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. P. LAVANDE, J.)

¶14

Pursis filed on behalf of the petitioners, is taken

¶15

on record.

¶16

Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General for respondents no.1 to 3. None appears on behalf of respondents no.4 and 5, though served.

¶17

Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

¶18

By this petition, the petitioners challenge the notification dated 27^th August, 2010 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act ('The Act' for short) and also the

¶19

¶20

notification dated 22^nd March, 2011 issued under Section 6 of The Act, by which the land of the petitioners bearing Survey Nos.334/3 part and 334/15 part situated at village Verna of Salcete Taluka, has been acquired by respondent no.1. The grievance of the petitioners is that the acquisition is not in public interest and in any case, the objection taken by the petitioners under Section 5A of The Act insofar as the availability of the alternate land is concerned, has not been considered either by the Land Acquisition Officer ('The LAO' for short) or by the State Government. It is further the grievance of the petitioners in the petition that the acquisition is contrary to guidelines formulated in terms of the circular dated 7^th April, 2003.

¶21

Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 submits that respondents no.1 to 3 will have no objection if the notification under Section 6 of The Act is set aside and the LAO is directed to consider the objections taken by the petitioners under Section 5A of The Act and also the objection that acquisition of the land is contrary to Circular dated 7^th April, 2003, provided the petitioners waive their right to contend that no fresh notification under Section 6 of The Act can be issued in case Section 6 notification is struck down since the period of one

¶22

¶23

year has already lapsed. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of This Court passed in Writ Petition No.557/2007 dated 27^th February, 2008 in which the Division Bench has held that although the State Government is bound by the provisions of Section 6 of The Act laying down the period, a person interested whose land is acquired, is entitled to waive the objection regarding the time-frame prescribed for the purpose of issuance of Section 6 notification of The Act.

¶24

The petitioners have filed pursis stating that they will not raise the issue regarding limitation in publishing notification under Section 6 of The Act.

¶25

In view of the above, the notification dated 22^nd March, 2011 issued under Section 6 of The Act qua the petitioners, is quashed and set aside. The LAO shall consider the objections taken by the petitioners to Section 4 notification and shall also consider the applicability of the guidelines dated 7^th April, 2003 and submit a report to the State Government. The State Government shall have liberty to issue fresh notification under Section 6 of The Act, after considering the report in accordance with law and further to proceed in accordance with law. The challenge of the

¶26

¶27

petitioners to Section 4 notification, is kept open. All the other contentions of the petitioners are also kept open. Needless to mention that interim order dated 28^th July, 2011 stands vacated.

¶28

8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶29

Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to

costs.

A. P. LAVANDE, J.

U. V. BAKRE, J.

SMA

Shri Laurente v. Fernandes and 2 Ors., v State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Laurente v. Fernandes and 2 Ors., v State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Augustino Mascarenhas., Vs State of Goa, through Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Mr. Dhannaram @ Dhania Bhill Vs State through P.I. Manjunath Dessai, Ponda Police Station

Shri Devendra K. Sardesai Vs Ribander Chimbel Rakhon Samiti through Chairman Luis D'Souza

Shri Razzak Shaikh, Police Sub Inspector, Panaji Police Station, Tiswadi,Goa., Vs Smt. Shradha B. Salgaokar, Vasco-Da-Gama.

Sao Jose De Areal Villagers Union Rep. by Mr. Salvador Fernandes and Ors., Vs the State of Goa through Chief Secretary

State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 101 Ors., Vs Mr. Clifford Dias and 2 Ors.