Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the land acquisition award dated 28.5.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rev) and Land Acquisition Officer, and all corresponding actions. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of house No.E-372 situated in property bearing survey no.254/1(part) belonging to respondent no.3, Smt. Clotildes alias Clotina Fernandes (since deceased, represented by Smt. Kshamata Desai). The petitioner contended that respondent no.3 created a lease in August 1978 in its favour for a monthly rent of Rs.700/-, which was increased from time to time. Respondent no.3 filed eviction proceedings which were compromised in June 1991, wherein respondent no.3 admitted the petitioner as a tenant. The petitioner further contended that in August 2022, in Writ Petition No.325 of 2010, it came to know about the acquisition award. The respondents, State of Goa and the Deputy Collector, opposed the petition on grounds of delay and laches, and availability of alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court heard arguments from both sides. The court observed that the petitioner had not explained the delay of 14 years in challenging the award, and had not availed the alternative remedy of reference. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the challenge was belated and the petitioner had acquiesced to the acquisition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Delay and Laches - Challenge to Award - Writ Petition under Article 226 - The petitioner challenged the acquisition award after 14 years without explaining the delay. The court held that such belated challenge cannot be entertained, especially when the petitioner had earlier participated in acquisition proceedings and did not avail the alternative remedy of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Paras 4-10) B) Land Acquisition - Alternative Remedy - Reference under Section 18 - The court held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was not availed. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy and unexplained delay. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, claiming to be a tenant, can challenge the land acquisition award dated 28.5.2009 after a delay of 14 years, and whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Reference Court
- Limitation
- Delay and Laches
- Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226
- Alternative Remedy
- Acquiescence
