VISHNU BHICARO ALIAS BHIKANI DESSAI Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Advocate Sardessai for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Kholkar for respondent No. 3. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 19.2.2008 under Section 4 and dated 10.7.2008 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 along with the report dated 20.6.08 under Section 5A thereof. It is not in dispute that he is a tenant of entire land surveyed under Survey No. 171/3(part) which is sought to be acquired by publishing notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 ("Act" for short) for construction and parking area of commercial building complex at Cuncolim Bazar in Village Cuncolim of Salcete Taluka. His grievance is that he did not receive any opportunity in an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. When the matter was listed first before this Court on 1.9.2008, in view of the said grievance, this Court, prima facie, found that his objections with regard to acquisition of the property and location of other lands or suitability thereof, were not considered. The Advocate General present in the Court was, therefore, requested to make a statement whether the respondents could consider such objections even at that stage. This Court has recorded that in all fairness, the Advocate General stated that the petitioner could still raise objections which would be considered and a fresh report would be submitted at the conclusion of hearing, if the petitioner co-operates and remains present for hearing. The petitioner accepted to remain present and co-operate on the date and time to be fixed by this Court. This Court directed him to remain present before respondent No. 1 on 8.9.08 and directed conclusion of hearing and consideration of all objections within two weeks from that date. Matter was adjourned to 29.9.08. Respondent No. 1, accordingly, conducted the hearing and submitted report to this Court on 29.9.08. Thereafter, upon oral request made by the petitioner, Cuncolim Municipal Council was added as party respondent No. 3 after leave to amend the petition was granted. The pleadings were completed and we have heard respective parties, on merits, on 22.4.2009.

(3.) In the affidavit filed on 29.9.08, respondent No. 1 has stated that adjacent lands pointed out by the petitioners are also being acquired for construction of playground, swimming pool, Ravindra Bhavan, etc. Along with the affidavit, he has filed the report prepared, after considering the objections of the petitioner and also after visiting the spot. Respondent No. 3 also filed its affidavit, pointing out that adjacent lands were being acquired for other public utility projects. Respondent No. 2-State has also, through its Under Secretary, filed similar reply affidavit on record. Additional affidavit has then been filed by respondent No. 3 in support of its earlier stand.