FRANCISCO FERREIRA MARTINS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Peititioners challenge in this Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, the legality of the Notification No. 22/80/83-RD dated 6th Dec. 1983, issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the vires of the Rule 4(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Acquisition Rules, 1972 to the extent it allows objections under S.5A after the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the Notification under S.4 and within such further period of time as may be fixed by the Collector.

(2.) The admitted and relevant facts may be stated. There exists a plot of land situated at Altinho, Panjim. It admeasures approximately 2,280 sq. mts., is assigned to one Antonio Ferreira Martins under title No. 718 dated 27th Sept, 1935 and a bungalow consisting of two floors stands thereon. This bungalow was let out to the Government in the year 1962 and has been, since about Mar. 1981, occupied by the Chief Minister of Goa, Daman and Diu as his official residence. The said Antonio Ferreira Martins was declared as an evacuee, under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 by an order of the Custodian of Evacuee property dated 19th Nov. 1966 and in consequence, his properties including the said bungalow, vested in the Custodian. This order was successfully challenged in a civil suit, being the civil suit No. 33 of 1969, for the learned District Judge, Panjim, declared it to be without jurisdiction, void and inoperative, by his judgment and decree dated 27th Sept. 1983. Then, by the impugned Notification dated 6th Dec. 1963, issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", it was notified that the land specified in its schedule, namely land admeasuring 2,280 sq. mts. and assigned under title No. 718 dated 17th Sept. 1935 to Antonio Ferreira Martins was likely to be needed for public purpose, viz. residential house for the Chief Minister at Altinho. It was also notified that, in the opinion of the Government, the provisions of Sec.17(1) of the Act were attracted and therefore, it was directed under Sec.17(4) that the provisions of Sec.5-A would not apply in respect of the said land.

(3.) We may also mention at this stage, as relevant for the disposal of this petition, that at the time of the admission, the learned counsel for the respondents stated across the Bar that the urgency clause inserted in the impugned Notification would not be pressed into service and in the event of the petitioners filing their objections under Sec.5-A, the Department would consider them. On this statement being made, the learned counsel for the petitioners informed this Court that the requisite objections under Sec.5-A would be filed within two weeks by the petitioners without prejudice however to their rights and contentions. It is common ground that such objections were actually filed within the said time.