Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Agnelo Lopes and Mr. Milton Lopes, challenged a notification dated 16th December 2009 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking to acquire their property bearing survey Nos.9/14 and 9/20 in Deussua, Salcete Goa, for the purported public purpose of constructing a road at 2nd Palvem-Chinchinim. The petitioners argued that the acquisition was initiated malafide at the instance of Respondent No.5, a Minister, and lacked any genuine public purpose. They pointed out that an earlier acquisition in the same locality was dropped after an unfavourable Section 5A report. Subsequently, an officer from the Ministry headed by Respondent No.5 was appointed as Special Land Acquisition Officer, who submitted a biased report without considering objections from at least five out of thirteen alleged beneficiary households. The petitioners also contended that the acquisition violated the Government's own Circular dated 7th April 2003 and the NOC from the Town and Country Planning Department. At the site, it was conceded even in the biased Section 5A report that it was impossible to have a road of the required width of six metres. The proposed road would end at a nalla, far from the Chinchinim-Orlim Bridge road, and would damage houses and compound walls, including two ancestral heritage homes of the petitioners. The court, after hearing arguments, found that the acquisition was vitiated by malafides and lack of public purpose, and that the Section 5A report was biased and without application of mind. The court also noted the breach of the Government circular. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notification and allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Malafides - Public Purpose - Section 6 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court examined whether the acquisition notification was issued malafide at the instance of Respondent No.5, a Minister, and whether the public purpose of road construction was genuine. The court found that the earlier acquisition in the same locality was dropped after an unfavourable Section 5A report, and the subsequent appointment of a Special Land Acquisition Officer from the Ministry headed by Respondent No.5 indicated bias. The Section 5A report was held to be biased and without proper application of mind, as it did not consider objections from at least five out of thirteen alleged beneficiary households. The court also noted that the proposed road was impossible to construct of the required width and would damage ancestral heritage homes. Held that the acquisition was vitiated by malafides and lack of genuine public purpose (Paras 2-4). B) Land Acquisition - Government Circular - Non-Compliance - Section 5A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court considered the breach of the Government's own Circular dated 7th April, 2003 and the NOC from the Town and Country Planning Department. The acquisition was initiated without following the mandatory procedure under the circular, which required prior approval and compliance with planning norms. The court held that the failure to adhere to the circular rendered the acquisition process illegal and unsustainable (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the petitioners' property for road construction is vitiated by malafides and lack of public purpose, and whether the acquisition process violated the Government's own circular and principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notification dated 16th December 2009 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Malafides
- Public Purpose
- Section 5A Report
- Government Circular
- Bias
