SHREE VETAL MAHARUDRA SAUNSTHAN Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above petitions are taken up together as the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties have pointed out that the issue involved is identical with regard to a Notification for acquisition of land for the construction of the road, which can be conveniently disposed off together.

(2.) Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.

(3.) The above petitions take exception to the Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') dated 5/5/2015 whereby a portion of the property surveyed under No. 1/13, 1/35, 1/36 and 1/37, of the village Mulgao were intended to be acquired by the respondent/Appropriate Government for the benefit of the devotees of the temple. The said Notification under Section 6 was pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act which came to be issued on 12/12/2013. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the proposed intended acquisition was not at all justified and would not meet the purpose for which it was acquired as according to the petitioners, the respondents have an alternative access which according to them was more beneficial to meet the intended purpose. With this background, the parties were called upon to visit the site and explore the possibility of examining whether a viable alternate access was available to meet the intended public purpose as reflected in the Notification under the said Act. After deliberation between the parties and different visits to the site the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have brought to our notice that an alternative access can be located in the property surveyed under No. 1/13, 1/29, 1/37 and 1/35 which admittedly belongs to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 722/2015. The plan depicting the said proposed access shown in blue colour is accepted by all the parties and is marked 'X' for identification.