Remanded

Benjamin Braganza through Poa Mr. Agnelo S. Rosario v. the State of Goa through the Under Secretary (Revenue-Ii) and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2019WP/794/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa set aside the Government's reasoned-deficit communication dismissing the petitioner's representation regarding land acquisition objections. The Court directed the Government to dispose of the representation within 8 weeks with a reasoned order while continuing interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the communication dated 26/10/2012; directed the Government to dispose of the representation within 8 weeks with a reasoned order; continued interim stay on possession.

Benjamin Braganza through Poa Mr. Agnelo S. Rosario Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp no.794 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.794 OF 2012

¶5

Benjamin Braganza,
Major of age,
Indian National,
r/o. H.No.22, Dando (Pedda),
Margao, Salcete Goa.
Presently resident of Kuwait,
Through his power of attorney holder
Mr. Agnelo Sebastiao Rosario,
Son of Sebastiao Rosatio,
Son of Sebastiao Rosario,
57 years of age,
Resident of H.No.66,
Telaulim, Salcete Goa.

¶6

…. Petitioner

¶7

V/s

¶8

1. The State of Goa,
 Through the Under Secretary
 (Revenue – II), Having his
 office at Secretariat,
 Porvrom, Bardez-Goa.

¶9

2. The Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Collectorate, South Goa, Margao, Goa.

¶10

3. The Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (R-S), Margao, Salcete Goa.

¶11

Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶12

wp no.794 of 2012

¶13

¶14

Shri Pravin Faldessai, Additional Government Advocate for the
Respondents.

¶15

 Coram:- M. S. SONAK &
 PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
 Date:- 3rd October, 2019

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

Heard Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner and Shri Pravin Faldessai, the learned Additional
Government Advocate for the Respondents.

¶18

2. The petitioner seeks an appropriate declaration that the
proposed acquisition of his property vide impugned notification
dated 23/11/2010 and 22/12/2011 is illegal and unconstitutional
and for consequential orders to quash the same.

¶19

3. The record indicates that the petitioner had earlier
instituted a Writ Petition No.640/2012 seeking similar reliefs. This
petition was disposed of by this Court on 10/09/2012 by making
the following order:

¶20

“Rule returnable forthwith.

¶21

2.Heard by consent.

¶22

3.Having regard to the circumstances of the
case, the interest of justice could be served if the
petitioner is allowed to make a representation which
the Government may consider within a period of 15
days after receiving the same. The Government will
pass reasoned order there upon. The petitioner shall

¶23

wp no.794 of 2012

¶24

¶25

be entitled to raise all such objections as may be
appropriate.

¶26

4. Rule made absolute. Writ Petition stands
disposed of.”

¶27

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the petitioner had made a
detailed representation to the Government, which was disposed of
by the Government and such disposal was communicated to the
petitioner vide communication dated 26/10/2012 addressed by the
Deputy Collector (LA), Margao, Goa.

¶28

5. From the perusal of the communication dated
26/10/2012, as also the notings which are placed on record at pages
79 to 87 of the paper book, we find that there has been no proper
consideration of the petitioner's representation by the Government.

¶29

6. The communication dated 26/10/2012 contains no
reasons whatsoever, though, by our order dated 10/09/2012, we had
directed the Government to pass the reasoned order. Besides, on
perusal of the notings, we find that the only reason, if at all for
rejection of the petitioner's representation, is that the petitioner had
failed to lodge objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 within the prescribed period.

¶30

wp no.794 of 2012

¶31

¶32

7. At the stage when the petitioner had instituted Writ
Petition No.640/2012 and at the stage when we made our order
dated 10/09/2012, the position that the petitioner had not filed
objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
within the prescribed period was quite clear. Despite that, looking
at the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we had
given liberty to the petitioner to file a representation and, thereafter,
directed the Government disposed of such representation by passing
a reasoned order thereupon. Therefore, the representation could not
have been rejected once again on the very same grounds and that too
without passing a reasoned order.

¶33

8. On the aforesaid short ground, we set aside the
impugned communication dated 26/10/2012 and the decision
which is conveyed thereby and direct the Government once again to
consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated
12/09/2012 and 01/10/2012 as expeditiously as possible and in any
case within a period of 8 weeks from today. In addition, we grant
liberty to the petitioner to file an additional representation within
one week from today, without seeking any further extension. This
time, the Government to pass a reasoned order upon such
representation.

¶34

5 wp no.794 of 2012

¶35

9. From the year 2012, there is an interim relief in
operation which retrains the respondents from taking over
possession of the petitioner's property. We continue this interim
relief until the Government disposes of the petitioner's
representation. If the representation is rejected, the interim relief to
continue for a period of four weeks from the date of communication
of such rejection to the petition.

¶36

10. The rule in this petition is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. There shall be no order as to costs. All concerned to act on
the basis of authenticated copy of this order.

¶37

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. M. S. SONAK, J.

¶38

NH

Benjamin Braganza through Poa Mr. Agnelo S. Rosario v. the State of Goa through the Under Secretary (Revenue-Ii) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benjamin Braganza through Poa Mr. Agnelo S. Rosario v. the State of Goa through the Under Secretary (Revenue-Ii) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L and T Finance Ltd., Thr. Its Field Legal Officer, Dishan Naik., Vs Rim Logistics, Thr. Its Partner, T. Raghuvendra Swamy.

Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Anr., Vs the Chief Secretary, State of Goa and 5 Ors.

Keshav Ramchandra Naik., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Anant Y. Lotlikar., Vs Kadamaba Transport Corporation Ltd., Thr. Its General Manager.

Alisha Govekar and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunstha, Zambaulim, Thr. Its Man. Committee, Rep. by Jaiprakash S. Kunde., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.