Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Agostinho Agnelo Sanches, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging two notifications dated 01.07.2009 and 17.06.2010 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act). The notifications sought to acquire the petitioner's properties bearing chalta no. 28 (Part) and 29 (Part) of P.T. Sheet No.68, admeasuring 65 square metres and 100 square metres respectively, for the purpose of constructing an internal road near Vaddem Lake in Vasco Constituency. The petitioner alleged that no inquiry as contemplated under Rule 4(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Acquisition Rules, 1972 (the said Rules) was held prior to the issuance of the notifications. On 27.09.2010, the court granted ad-interim relief directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner and to file an affidavit stating whether an inquiry was held, and to produce the original inquiry file for inspection. The respondents, including the State of Goa, the Deputy Collector/SDO, and the Minister for Revenue, failed to produce any record of the inquiry despite the court's direction. The court heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, and Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3. Respondent no.4 was served but remained absent. The court noted that the respondents did not file any affidavit or produce the inquiry file, indicating that no inquiry under Rule 4(2) was ever conducted. The court held that the inquiry under Rule 4(2) is mandatory and its non-compliance renders the acquisition proceedings invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the notifications dated 01.07.2009 and 17.06.2010 and allowed the petition. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Mandatory Inquiry - Rule 4(2) of Goa, Daman and Diu Land Acquisition Rules, 1972 - Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Petitioner challenged notifications dated 01.07.2009 and 17.06.2010 for acquisition of his property for road construction, alleging that no inquiry as required under Rule 4(2) was held. The respondents failed to produce any record of such inquiry despite court directions. Held that the inquiry under Rule 4(2) is mandatory and its non-compliance vitiates the acquisition proceedings. Notifications quashed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry under Rule 4(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Acquisition Rules, 1972.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The notifications dated 01.07.2009 and 17.06.2010 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mandatory inquiry under Rule 4(2) of Goa
- Daman and Diu Land Acquisition Rules
- 1972
- Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirement
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 Sections 4 and 6
- Quashing of acquisition notifications
