AIENLA SEMELHAGO Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Salkar learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the Notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the said Act) in the context of the acquisition of the petitioner's property admeasuring 540.75 square metres bearing Chalta No.2A of P.T. Sheet No. 173 of the city of Panaji for the recreational purpose i.e. extension of the existing garden at Caranzalem in Panaji city.

(3.) Mr. Desai submitted that on the date when this petition was filed, no award had been made under the said Act. However, he submitted that later on i.e. 21/5/2015 an award was indeed made. He submitted that even though no formal amendment has been applied for by the petitioner to challenge this award dtd. 21/5/2015, if the impugned Notifications are quashed then, as a corollary, even the award dtd. 21/5/2015 will have to be quashed. Mr. Desai submitted that the petitioner's case is almost entirely based on the provisions of Sec. 11-A of the said Act which provide that an award under Sec. 11 of the said Act has to be made within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Sec. 6 of the said Act and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse.