WILSON DCOSTA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. A. Agni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

(2.) Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued by the respondents for acquisition of the land under various survey numbers including survey nos. 154/1, 154/2, 156/1 in the year 1990 and objections were raised under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as "the said Act" ) on 23.07.1990, which were subsequently dropped by the respondents. Thereafter, on 27.01.2000 attempts were made by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Department of Telecom Services to instal a telephone cables by digging in the property "MOLLA" surveyed under the said survey numbers which was objected by the predecessor in title of the petitioners by filing a Civil Suit No. 167/2000 which was partly decreed by judgment dated 30.03.2007. The first appeal filed was admitted by this Court and is pending for final hearing. In the meanwhile a notice inviting tenders, appeared in the 'Navhind Times' in January, 2010 for improvement and B-T of left out road at Rohinibhat. It was learnt by the petitioner no.1 that the work was being carried out on priority basis which led the petitioners to file a Civil Suit in the District Court apprehending that the road would be constructed through the property of the petitioners. The suit was dismissed on 25.01.2012 and appeal preferred before this Court is still pending. Thereafter, on 30.08.2012 a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published in the local newspaper on 30.08.2012 and objections were filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the said Act on behalf of all the legal heirs of late Antonio Tiago e D'Costa. The personal hearing was given by the Dy. Collector and a report under Section 5A of the said Act was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer on 06.02.2013. Thereafter, a Notification under Section 6 of the said Act was also published in the Official Gazette on 14.03.2013 and being aggrieved by the said Notification the petitioners preferred a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P. No. 394 of 2013 which came to be disposed of by order dated 12.08.2013 on the basis of a statement made on behalf of the respondents that the Notification under Section 6 would be withdrawn and the petitioners would be given a hearing before submitting the report under section 5A of the said Act. Accordingly, the petitioners filed additional objections to the acquisition inter-alia contending that the road was being constructed at the behest of the local minister and the same was being made only for the benefit of one person namely Sarika Kamble who has a house in Rohinibhat in the property surveyed under No.154/2 and who is an ex-pancha. It was also pointed out that the existing road is at a distance of 75 meters from the property surveyed under no.154/2 and the proposed road would also be at a distance of 75 meters from the existing road. Despite of the said objections the report under Section 5A of the said Act was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer recommending the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the said Notification, the petitioners preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the Notification essentially on the ground that the report under Section 5A did not at all examine the objections raised by the petitioners.