Case Note & Summary
The High Court allowed two Writ Petitions challenging orders of the Reference Court in a land acquisition reference case. The Petitioner, sought impleadment of additional parties including the Communidade of Bambolim and the Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court had dismissed the impleadment application, holding that the parties had nothing to do with the reference. The High Court held that Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 imposes mandatory notice requirements on the Reference Court. The Court found that the Communidade of Bambolim, as the original occupant against whom tenancy rights were claimed, and the Deputy Collector who passed the Award, were necessary parties under Section 20. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court emphasized that Section 20 provisions are mandatory. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Reference Court was directed to implead the necessary parties and proceed with the reference determination.
Headnote
The High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed two Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner, challenging orders of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 9/2011 -- The Court held that the Reference Court's dismissal of the impleadment application was contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- The Court emphasized that Section 20 requires mandatory notice to the Applicant, all persons interested in the objection, and the Collector where compensation quantum is disputed -- The Communidade of Bambolim, as the original occupant and landlord against whom tenancy rights were claimed, was a necessary party under Section 20(b) -- The Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, who passed the Award, was a necessary party under Section 20(c) -- The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Rajmani v. Collector, Raipur (1996) 5 SCC 701 which held Section 20 provisions to be mandatory -- The impugned orders dated 18.09.2025 and 06.12.2025 were set aside, and the Reference Court was directed to implead the necessary parties and proceed with the reference
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of Consideration was whether the Reference Court erred in dismissing the Petitioner's application for impleadment of additional parties in a land acquisition reference case
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both Writ Petitions, set aside the impugned orders dated 18.09.2025 and 06.12.2025, and directed the Reference Court to implead the Communidade of Bambolim and the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition as necessary parties in Land Acquisition Case No. 9/2011
Law Points
- Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 imposes mandatory notice requirements on the Reference Court
- The provisions of Section 20 are mandatory and not discretionary
- The Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC) applies to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act unless inconsistent
- The Reference Court must issue notice to all persons interested in the objection under Section 20(b)
- The Collector must be impleaded as a party under Section 20(c) where objection relates to compensation quantum
- Necessary parties include those with interest in the land or compensation determination
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 103
Writ Petition No. 128 of 2026 with Writ Petition No. 127 of 2026
Mr. Devidas Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Vishwesh Kamat, Advocate for Respondent
The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare, Ground Floor, Collectorate Building, Panaji-Goa, 403001
Mr. Teofilo J. Monteiro, Son of Mr. Jose Mario Monteiro, 84 years of age, married, Indian National, retired, Resident of House No. 42, Bambolim, Tiswadi-Goa, 403202
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the Reference Court in a land acquisition reference case
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought setting aside of the Reference Court orders dismissing impleadment application and stay application, and direction to implead necessary parties
Filing Reason
The Petitioner contended that the Reference Court erred in dismissing applications for impleadment of necessary parties contrary to mandatory provisions of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Previous Decisions
The Reference Court had dismissed the Petitioner's application for impleadment of additional parties including Communidade of Bambolim and Land Acquisition Officer, holding they had nothing to do with the reference
Issues
Whether the Reference Court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment of additional parties in the land acquisition reference case
Whether Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 imposes mandatory notice requirements on the Reference Court regarding parties to be impleaded
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act mandates notice to all persons interested in the objection and the Collector
The Petitioner contended that Communidade of Bambolim and the Land Acquisition Officer were necessary parties to the reference
The Respondent's position was that the parties sought to be impleaded had nothing to do with the reference proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 imposes mandatory notice requirements on the Reference Court -- The provisions of Section 20 are mandatory and not discretionary -- The Reference Court must issue notice to the Applicant, all persons interested in the objection under Section 20(b), and the Collector under Section 20(c) where compensation quantum is disputed -- Necessary parties include those with interest in the land or compensation determination
Judgment Excerpts
"On a reference being received by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act, along with the Collector's statement to the Court under Section 19 of the Act, it is the duty of the Reference Court to issue notice to the persons stated in Section 20 thereof"
"The provision of Section 20, therefore, make it mandatory for the Reference Court to issue notice to the Applicant and to any other persons who are interested in objecting to the compensation"
"The provisions of Section 20 have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajmani V/s Collector, Raipur, holding the same to be mandatory"
Procedural History
Land Acquisition Case No. 9/2011 was before the District Court on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- The Reference Court impleaded Sainik Welfare Department as Respondent -- Petitioner filed application for impleadment of additional parties which was dismissed on 18.09.2025 -- Petitioner filed stay application which was dismissed on 06.12.2025 -- Petitioner filed Writ Petitions Nos. 127/2026 and 128/2026 challenging these orders -- High Court heard the matter finally with consent of parties and disposed of both petitions
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 53
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964:
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
