High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Petitioner to Make Representation in Land Acquisition Case — Government Directed to Consider and Pass Reasoned Order. The Court held that the interest of justice would be served by permitting the petitioner to make a representation, which the Government must consider within 15 days.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 89
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Benjamin Braganza, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa against the State of Goa, the Land Acquisition Officer, and the Executive Engineer. The matter pertained to land acquisition proceedings. The Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the interest of justice could be served if the petitioner was allowed to make a representation to the Government. The Court directed that the petitioner may make such a representation, and the Government shall consider it and pass a reasoned order within 15 days of receiving the same. The petitioner was entitled to raise all appropriate objections. The rule was made absolute, and the writ petition was disposed of.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Right to Representation - Government's Duty - The petitioner sought to make a representation to the Government in a land acquisition matter. The Court held that the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is allowed to make a representation, which the Government must consider and pass a reasoned order within 15 days. (Paras 3-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner should be allowed to make a representation to the Government regarding the land acquisition, and whether the Government should consider it and pass a reasoned order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court allowed the petitioner to make a representation to the Government, which shall consider it and pass a reasoned order within 15 days. Rule made absolute. Writ petition disposed of.

Law Points

  • Right to make representation
  • Government's duty to consider representation and pass reasoned order
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (09) 153

Writ Petition No. 640 of 2012

2012-09-10

S.A. Bobde, U.V. Bakre

2012:BHC-GOA:2203-DB

Mr. Nigel Da Cost Frias (for petitioner), Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. P. Dangui, Additional Government Advocate (for respondents)

Benjamin Braganza

The State of Goa, The Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, The Executive Engineer, Works Division VI(R-S)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to make a representation to the Government regarding the land acquisition.

Filing Reason

The petitioner wanted to raise objections in the land acquisition matter.

Issues

Whether the petitioner should be allowed to make a representation to the Government in the land acquisition matter.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner sought to make a representation; the respondents did not object to the same.

Ratio Decidendi

The interest of justice can be served by permitting the petitioner to make a representation, which the Government must consider and pass a reasoned order.

Judgment Excerpts

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the interest of justice could be served if the petitioner is allowed to make a representation which the Government may consider within a period of 15 days after receiving the same. The Government will pass reasoned order there upon.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed in 2012. Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent on 10th September 2012.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition by National Institute of Industrial Engineering Challenging Trade Union Registration. State Government Held as Appropriate Government for NITIE Under Section 2(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Allowing Union R...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Against Rejection of FCRA Renewal for Concealment of Facts and Pending Case. The court held that mere pendency of a criminal case against office bearers does not automatically disqualify a society from FCRA renew...