JOHN MOSES FERNANDES Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, by consent taken up for final hearing forthwith.

(2.) THE matter arises out of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In fact, this is the second round of litigation wherein the petitioners have ventured to challenge the acquisition of their land under surveys no. 68/3 and 68/6, situated at Pimpolkotto, Quepem, Goa. At the instance of the third respondent, Municipality, the Government has initiated land acquisition in respect of the aforesaid land for the purpose of widening the branch road branching from the main Quepem-Curchorem road going into the village alongwith some other land. Notification under Section 4 (1) was published on 27th December, 1991, and gazetted on 13th July, 1992. A Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in the newspaper on 12th July, 1993 and in the Gazette on 9th July, 1993, dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry after invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. THE petitioners in Writ Petition No.136/94 challenged all the Notifications abovementioned. By Judgment dated 18th April, 1994, this Court after upholding the Notification under Section 4 (1) quashed the Notification under Section 6 of the said Act. This Court also observed that there was no question of application of urgency clause and thereby to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the said Act. While disposing of the Writ Petition, the Division Bench of this Court in the above Judgment observed that : 4.In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to hear the petitioners on their objections to the proposed road. THE petitioners to file their objections which they shall do within a period of two weeks from today and the concerned Land Acquisition Officer is directed to hear the petitioners and submit his Report to the Government and the Government thereafter to take the decision accordingly. Having regard to the fact that Section 4 Notification was last published in the Government Gazette on 13th July, 1992, and in view of the liberty given to the petitioners to now file their objections and the direction given to the Government to consider them, we record that there is no objection by the petitioners to extend the time for publication of Section 6 Notification, afresh soon thereafter. "

(3.) THEREFORE, in this case, we have to address to the following questions: - (1)Whether the acquisition in respect of the petitioners' property is vitiated by any illegality or mala fide; and (2)Whether in view of the above Supreme Court decision the impugned Notification is liable to be set aside.