ARJUN MAHADEV HARMALKAR Vs. THE STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Priyanka Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Shivan Desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and Mr. Amey Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor in M.C.A. No. 515 of 2008.

(2.) The above petition inter-alia seeks to quash and set aside Notifications dated 29.07.2005 and 18.04.2006 in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner and also the impugned award dated 25.08.2006 in respect of the property surveyed under No. 103/92 of Saligao Village of Bardez Taluka.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case as pointed out by the petitioner are that the petitioner purchased the property admeasuring 775 square metres from survey No. 103/92 situated at Salmona, Saligao village by registered sale deed dated 07.04.1999. On 09.07.2004, the Pollution Control Board informed the local Village Panchayat that the water of Salmona spring contained coliform and fecal coliform and the water is not fit for drinking and consequently requested the panchayat to stop the people from dumping the garbage on the back side of the spring. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for change of zone from Orchard to Settlement in the Regional plan and notification was issued on 28.11.2002 calling for the objections. The State Government after considering all the materials, approved the proposal of the petitioner for the change of zone from Orchard to Settlement. The respondent no.2 thereafter issued a conversion sanad on 11.06.2004 to the petitioner for the change in land use and permitting the petitioner to use an area 583 square metres out of the area 775 square metres under the said survey number on payment of conversion fees. Subsequently, Mapusa Planning and Development authority granted development permission on 07.01.2005 to the petitioner for the construction of a residential house. The Village Panchayat on 21.02.2005 issued a construction licence in favour of the petitioner upon certain conditions. There was a statement made on 22.3.2005 by the respondent no.4 who was the then Tourism Minister that the Tourism Department intending to start acquiring land around Salmona spring to prevent it from being developed commercially. It is further the contention of the petitioner that on account of pressure from certain quarters under the Government directions were issued to acquire the land including the petitioner's property surveyed under No. 103/92 in March, 2003. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the Governor on 28.03.2005 bringing to his notice that the petitioner has constructed a residential house to a great extent and any move to acquire land by the Government will put the petitioner and his family to the financial loss and mental stress. The Village Panchayat unanimously resolved on 30.03.2005 to oppose the proposal of land acquisition for the development of Salmona spring. Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice from the Director of Panchayats dated 11.04.2005 and the Village Panchayat Saligao were asked to show cause why the permission granted by the Village Panchayat to the petitioner for construction of a residential house should not be suspended under Section 178 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Gram Sabha on 24.04.2005 passed a resolution opposing the proposed acquisition by the Government as the development of the spring by the Tourism Department will lead to commercialization of the place. The department of Tourism on 02.05.2005 informed the petitioner that the matter regarding acquisition of the land in respect of survey No. 103/92 is under consideration of the Government and necessary notification is expected to be published after finalization of the matter. The Director of Panchayats by judgment and order dated 13.05.2005 withdrew the show cause notice issued to the petitioner and the local Village panchayat. Subsequently, on 01.08.2005 a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as 'the said Act of 1894' ) was issued stating therein that the land of the petitioner admeasuring an area of 660 square metres out of total 775 square metres along with the land of the other people is needed for public purpose. The provisions of Section 17 of the said Act was also invoked by the State Government. The petitioner thereafter filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 314/2005 before this Court on 06.08.2005. In the meanwhile on 24.08.2005 a Notification dated 23.08.2005 was issued by the respondent no.1 revoking the notification of change of land use in the Regional Plan for Goa 2001. The Collector of North Goa on 29.08.2005 issued an order revoking the conversion sanad issued in favour of the petitioner though the petitioner had already constructed a residential house in the said property. Thereafter on 30.08.2005 a statement was made by the learned Advocate General that the petitioner would be heard under Section 5A of the said Act of 1894 and as such Writ Petition was disposed off. The petitioner thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 363/2005 before this Court challenging the Notification dated 23.08.2005 and the said order dated 29.08.2005 issued by the Collector revoking the conversion sanad. Thereafter, the learned Advocate General made a statement that the said Notification dated 23.08.2005 as well as the order dated 29.8.2005 have been withdrawn by the Government and consequently, Writ Petition came to be disposed off. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice from the Land Acquisition Officer calling for the objections in connection with the said acquisition as the petitioner once again filed written objection to that effect. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the date of hearing and the petitioner remained present on 21.03.2006 for such hearing. In the meanwhile, the panchayat granted no objection certificate for electricity of the said bungalow. The respondent no.2 thereafter issued a certified copy of the report under Section 5A of the said Act of 1894 on 17.04.2006. Subsequently, a Notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 came to be issued on 18.04.2006 in respect of the said acquisition. Being aggrieved by the said Notification, the petitioner filed the above petition for the reliefs stated herein above. As the award was passed thereafter in terms of Section 11 of the said Act of 1894, the petitioner amended the Writ Petition seeking to quash the said award. The respondent nos.1 and 4 have filed their affidavits to the above petition to which an affidavit in rejoinder came to be filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed additional affidavits to the petition.