Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Silvestre D' Souza and his wife Apolita D' Souza, purchased parts of a property in Santa Cruz, Goa, including a dwelling house. They applied for a license to construct a compound wall. Meanwhile, on 24.04.2003, the State of Goa issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire land for widening a road from the house of petitioner no. 1 to the house of Victoria Dias and from the garage of Mr. Nachinolkar to summer-villa at Santa Barbora, Bondir. The petitioners and other residents filed objections. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted an inquiry under Section 5A and submitted a report on 11.02.2004, observing that there was no existing road between the specified points and that the widening of a non-existent road should not be considered a public purpose. The report also noted that a corrigendum had been issued adding 'construction of drainage' as a purpose. Despite this, the government issued a corrigendum on 23.02.2005, which the petitioners sought to quash. The High Court held that the acquisition for widening a non-existent road was not for a public purpose, and the corrigendum adding a new purpose without a fresh Section 4(1) notification was invalid. The court quashed the corrigendum and directed the respondents to consider the Section 5A report and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Non-Existent Road - Acquisition for widening a road that does not exist does not constitute a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Land Acquisition Officer's report under Section 5A recommended dropping the acquisition as there was no existing road, and the government's corrigendum adding 'construction of drainage' without a fresh notification was invalid - Held that the acquisition was not for a public purpose and the corrigendum was illegal (Paras 3-6). B) Land Acquisition - Section 4(1) Notification - Corrigendum - Adding a new purpose (construction of drainage) by corrigendum without issuing a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is impermissible - The original notification only mentioned widening of road, and the corrigendum substantially altered the purpose - Held that the corrigendum is liable to be quashed (Paras 2, 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the corrigendum dated 23.02.2005 adding 'construction of drainage' as a purpose for acquisition without a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is valid, and whether the acquisition for widening a non-existent road serves a public purpose.
Final Decision
The court quashed the corrigendum no. 22/27/2003-RD dated 23.02.2005 and directed the respondents to consider the report under Section 5A dated 11.02.2004 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Land acquisition for non-existent road not public purpose
- Corrigendum adding new purpose without fresh notification invalid
- Section 5A inquiry report recommending dropping acquisition binding on government
