(1.) HEARD Shri DCosta, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Nadkarni, the learned Advocate General for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Lotlikar, the learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
(2.) THE writ petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification dated 20th June, 1996, and further, sought direction against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to withdraw the impugned notification.
(3.) IT is contended by Mr. DCosta that the proposed land acquisition proceedings are totally mala fide and undertaken in colourable exercise of power. It is further contended that the road proposed to be constructed is a road which will link the proposed bridge to the Rawanfond-Navelim road. It is further contended that the acquisition of land for the link road will be a sheer waste of public money. Petitioners are the owners in possession of the landed property situated primarily in the Village Panchayat of Aquem-Baixo which forms subject-matter of notification dated 20th June, 1996 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Besides, it is contended by Mr. DCosta that with the sole motive of providing access to respondents Nos. 4 and 5, the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have proposed construction of a bridge. The site chosen by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is clearly aimed at exclusively benefiting respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The site also is at variance with the one proposed by the Village Panchayat of Aquem-Baixo. It is further submitted that the site proposed by the Village Panchayat of Aquem-Baixo, in fact, reduces the distance between Firgulem and Navelim. In short, the contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is that the entire acquisition proceedings undertaken by the respondent State is not only in colourable exercise of power, but the same is only to benefit respondents Nos. 4 and 5. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 may be directed to withdraw the notification issued pursuant to section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.