AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U.V. Bakre
By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (''L. A. Act'' for short) issued by respondent no.1, to the extent it acquires the land of the petitioner admeasuring 150 square metres from Survey no.17/0 of village Xec- Xelvona, of Quepem Taluka, identified in yellow colour and with letter "A" to "B", as shown on the acquisition plan prepared by the respondent no. 1. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows :
The petitioner is the owner of the plot of land admeasuring 270 square metres of the property bearing Survey No.17/0 of village Xec-Xelvona, by virtue of a deed of sale dated 22/08/2006, executed in his favour by Shri Ganesh Raut Dessai and his wife. Vide notification dated 01/04/2010, published in the official gazette dated 15/04/2010, issued by the Government u/s 4 of the L. A. Act and the notification dated 07/04/2011, published in the local newspaper dated 13/04/2011 and issued u/s 6 of the L. A. Act, the Government of Goa proposed, inter alia, to acquire the petitioner''s land to the extent of 150 square metres from the said property allegedly for public purpose of construction of internal road. One Mr. Naziziano Fernandes i.e. respondent no.4 is the owner of the part of the property bearing Survey No.18-A and he has his house in the said property. Besides his house, there is another house in the said property and except for these two houses, there are no other houses beyond the property bearing Survey No.17 of village Xic-Xelvona. The said respondent no.4 wanted to develop his property and since the petitioner did not give access through his plot in the year 2006, respondent no.4 initiated proceedings u/s 133 of Cr.P.C. before the Mamlatdar alleging that the petitioner is illegally constructing the compound wall. The said matter ultimately ended before the Administrative Tribunal at Goa in Land Revenue Appeal No. 65/2007. Therefore, respondent no.4 is on inimical terms with the petitioner. Since the respondent no. 4 failed in his attempts to get road through the petitioner''s plot, he instigated respondent no. 3 to acquire part of the petitioner''s plot for extension of existing road in front of the petitioner''s plot, which is made by the owner of the said property under Survey No.17/0 and, therefore, obtained signatures of his relations and friends, who have no connection with the proposed acquisition and made a false representation to the Village Panchayat alleging that they do not have any other road and requested the Panchayat to acquire the land for road. Respondent no. 3, then, passed resolution on 25/01/2007 resolving to send the proposal to P.W.D. for acquisition and construction of road. Upon publication of the notification u/s 4 of the L. A. Act, the petitioner inspected the site plan of the land proposed to be acquired and the alignment of the proposed road and was shocked to know that a small portion admeasuring 150 square metres of his plot was proposed to be acquired. The said acquisition of the petitioner''s land is meant to benefit only respondent no. 4 and, therefore, this is not for public purpose. The petitioner, therefore, filed objections dated 14/05/2010. Respondent no. 2 issued notice dated 01/02/2010 u/s 5A of the L. A. Act calling upon the petitioner for personal hearing of his objections. Despite bringing to the notice of respondent no. 2 that the proposed acquisition from the petitioner''s land is meant only to benefit about two houses, respondent no. 2 prepared a biased report dated 14/03/2011 and submitted that the proposed land acquisition project is required as it will benefit more than 10 households and is for public purpose and, therefore, is recommended. Respondent no.2 has not at all considered the objections raised by the petitioner.
In answer to the petition, respondents no. 2 and 4 have filed affidavit-in-reply.
Respondent no.4 has stated as follows:
It is false that the petitioner is the owner of only 270 square metres of land in village Xelvona out of which an area of 150 square metres is being acquired. The petitioner is landlord from Xelvona having a house property measuring about 900 square metres abutting the main road and he is also the owner of many agricultural properties/ fields in Xelvona. The instant acquisition is inconsequential to the land holding of the petitioner, but the said road will benefit a large number of households and land holdings who otherwise have inconvenient and un-motorable access to their properties. There was a road of the width of 1.5 metres already existing at the said place which was abutting the main road and about 6 metres wide open space from the said property was used as a road by the villagers since many decades. This 6 metres wide katcha road was blocked by the petitioner after purchasing the plot towards which legal proceedings are pending. In the rough plan prepared and marked as annexure R4-A, the said road, the other houses in the locality and the cashew plantations of the villagers are shown which will stand to benefit from this acquisition. The petitioner''s plot was originally reserved as an open space by the original owner and developer of the plots and it was the last plot sold to the petitioner. However, the original owner had assured the villagers that he will leave 4.30 metres wide road access, which is now being acquired by the Government. The owner had also given a declaration that he will not claim compensation for the same and this declaration was given way back in the year 1997. Even the plan annexed to the sale deed dated 17/11/2006 whereby the original owner sold the plot to the petitioner shows 6 metres wide road. The only bottleneck in the network of roads in the locality is that which is being acquired by the Government. Recently when the residents of the locality namely Arjun Mardolkar became critically ill and was required to be hospitalised, the ambulance could not reach to his house because of the obstruction put by the petitioner.
Respondent no. 2, in his affidavit, has stated as follows:
The present acquisition is for construction of internal roads at Xelvona to Xic-Xelvona at village of Quepem Taluka and totally an area of 3338 square metres is being acquired belonging to various persons. Therefore, the public interest and public purpose is writ large in the acquisition itself. Out of the entire area of 3338 square metres, only an area of 150 square metres of the petitioner''s land is being acquired. There exists at site a 10 metres wide tarred road upto the petitioner''s property and beyond the petitioner''s property, there is a katcha road of 6 metres width. The residents of the locality and the villagers used this road as the only access to their houses and to their plantations. However, there is a bottleneck near the petitioner''s plot as a result of which the entire road beyond the petitioner''s property becomes un-motorable and inconvenient. This is particularly risky during exigency situation such as need to have ambulance and the Fire Tender attending the houses beyond the petitioner''s plot. The present acquisition will ensure a motorable access of 4 metres width near the petitioner''s property as well as the proper geometry and network of roads by removing bottleneck. About 10 households will be benefited by the present acquisition. Besides, several other villagers will also be benefited who access their cashew and other plantations through this road.
The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder. He has denied all the allegations made by the respondents which are contrary to his case. He has stated that there was a mistake in his sale deed dated 17/11/2006 inasmuch as plan annexed to that sale deed showed 6 metres'' wide road. However, when this mistake was realised by the landlord, a deed of rectification dated 14/12/2006 has been executed and the said mistake has been rectified and a separate plan showing the eastern boundary having 1.5 metres access has been substituted.
Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Advocate, argued on behalf of the petitioner, whereas Shri Amey Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate argued on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.
We have perused the entire material on record.
It is seen that by letter dated 19/01/2007, several villagers had written to the Village Panchayat, Assolda requesting for acquisition of land for public road at Caumorod at Xic-Xelvona village of Quepem Taluka in Survey No.17/0 alleging that there is a private road existing there since last 40 years used by the villagers and that there is no other road for the villagers of that area. The petitioner has purchased the plot of land admeasuring 270 square metres of land from the property bearing Survey No.17/0 from Shri Ganesh Raut Dessai and his wife vide sale deed dated 22/08/2006. The petitioner has not produced on record his sale deed. But when respondents no. 2 and 4 disclosed that the plan annexed to the sale deed of the petitioner shows the said 6 metres wide road as left by the original owner, and after the respondent no. 4 produced a copy of the plan annexed to the sale deed date 17/11/2006, the petitioner along with the affidavit-in-rejoinder has produced the deed of rectification dated 14/12/2006 which says that in the sale deed dated 17/11/2006 by mistake a wrong plan was attached. It is further mentioned in this deed of rectification that the eastern boundary mentioned in the schedule is also not correct. By this deed of rectification, the eastern boundary is mentioned as 1.5 metres footpath way solely reserved for the vendors. A new plan is now annexed to the deed of rectification wherein the said 6 metres wide road is not shown.
It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not heard or that there is any procedural lapse. The petitioner had filed objections dated 14/05/2010. The said objections have been duly considered by respondent no. 2 which fact is clear from the report dated 14/03/2011, u/s 5A of the L. A. Act. In this report, it is mentioned that in response to the notification u/s 4(1), the office of the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer received 3 objections from interested parties namely (1) Shri Madhu Gopinath Naik (the present petitioner); (2) Shri Vithoba Lakhmu Fatto Dessai and others and (3) Shri Sandip Chandrakant Fatto Dessai and Mrs. Chhaya Sandip Dessai. It is further stated in this report that as per the site inspection carried out, the land under acquisition is situated at village Xelvona and XicXelvona in Quepem Taluka and is acquired for construction of the internal road at Xelvona to Xic Xelvona in Quepem Taluka and that the said internal road is a private road already existing and the proposed acquisition is only to acquire the said already existing private road. It was observed that no structure or no tree of the interested party was affected. It is further mentioned in this report u/s 5A of the L. A. Act that the proposed land under acquisition from Survey No.17 of Xic-Xelvona village, admeasuring 185 square metres is presently a footpath of 1.5 metres width and there are 5 to 6 houses which will be benefited with the proposed road and there are no other sources from where the road will lead to their houses. It is seen that the other parties who had filed objections, gave up their claim for objections and it is only the petitioner, who has filed the present writ petition.
The vendor of the petitioner namely Ganesh Raut Dessai had given a declaration dated 04/02/1997 giving no objection to Works Division (XVIII), PWD, Ponda, Goa to execute the work of construction of road at Xic-Xelvona in his property under Survey No.17, of the width of 4 metres and 30 cms upto canal. By the said declaration, the said Ganesh Raut Dessai has actually donated the land from his property for the construction of the road, free of costs by reserving his right to receive compensation only towards the trees.
The affidavit of respondent no. 2, the notification u/s 4(1) of the L. A. Act and the report u/s 5A of the L. A. Act reveal that totally an area of 3338 square metres belonging to various persons is being acquired and this includes a small area of 150 square metres belonging to the petitioner. According to respondent no. 2 about 10 households will be benefited by the present acquisition and also several villagers, who have their cashew and other plantations would get an access. Respondent no. 2 has produced photographs showing the said katcha road, which is already existing but which has been blocked by the petitioner.
A private plan prepared by respondent no. 4 is on record which shows the position very clearly as to how the said acquisition is necessary in public interest. Merely by claiming that respondent no.4 is on inimical terms with the petitioner, that need not influence the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 to publish the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the L. A. Act and to take further steps for acquisition of not only the land admeasuring 150 square metres belonging to the petitioner, but total land admeasuring 3338 square metres belonging to various owners. The said other owners have neither objected to the acquisition nor have supported the petitioner.
The petitioner has not denied the fact that he is a landlord owning house property admeasuring about 900 square metres and other agricultural properties at Xelvona. The land is acquired for internal road and this is undoubtedly a public purpose.
It cannot be believed that the said acquisition would benefit only the respondent no. 4. No case is made out by the petitioner for the exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court in his favour. Therefore, the writ petition is summarily dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.