AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J
By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of Notifications dated 01-01-2009 and 02-03-2010. Copies of Notifications have been annexed to the petition. By these Notifications, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 have proposed acquisition of the petitioners property for a public purpose, namely construction and widening of ODP road. It is stated that the petitioners have filed their objections before the first respondent on 18-03-2009. It is contended that they applied for licence for construction of a building which was granted on 21-07-1986. However, there is some litigation pending. Since some construction was commenced, the acquisition of Survey No. 160/2 was requested to be withdrawn. The petitioner filed two sets of objections, one dated 18-03-2009 and the another 19-08-2009, but, the objections came to be rejected and report was submitted to the Authority. Ultimately, Declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued on 02-03-2010.
It is the Notification u/s 4 and Declaration u/s 6 which are under challenge in this writ petition.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners, that the petitioners'' property could not have been rendered unfit for development. The petitioners have questioned the proposed acquisition on the ground that at some places the width of the road is 6 metres and at some places it is narrowed by 3 metres and therefore the acquisition is malafide and arbitrary. It is stated that unauthorised structures have been constructed by the local residents with the blessings of respondent no. 4 and they have encroached to the extent of 3 metres in Survey No. 160/02. In such circumstances, and at the instance of respondent no. 4 uniform widening of the road has not been done.
It is submitted that re-alignment of the road by taking it through a adjoining property which also belongs to the petitioners, is a suggestion which could have been taken into account. However, this was also not accepted by the petitioners and ultimately, Declaration u/s 6 has been issued.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit wherein the petitioners have pointed out that a circular is issued by the Government of Goa, Revenue Department dated 07-04-2003, wherein certain instructions regarding acquisition of land have been issued. These instructions clearly state that for construction of road/access, atleast 10 houses are to be benefited for a road of 3 metres wide and length of less than 200 metres and for every 100 metres, number of additional houses have been set out in the circular and these conditions have not been adhered to, but rather violated.
We have perused the affidavit filed on record by respondent no. 2, who is the Member Secretary of the North Goa Planning and Development Authority. He has stated that the construction and widening of the existing ODP road is the purpose for which land has been acquired. It is stated that the road that is proposed to be constructed would meet the traffic requirement and avoid congestion. In para 7 of the affidavit, it is stated that suggestion given by the petitioner together with their objections has been duly considered.
On instructions, Mr. Nadkarni learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 submits that respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 will ensure that the road is 6 metres wide throughout but, presently in view of the encroachment on the acquisition site, 6 metres wide road has been reduced to a 3 metres wide road.
In para 9 of the affidavit, it is stated that the circular in question is not omitted from consideration. In fact, the proposal has been examined from all angles and for several houses, more than 10 in number, in Survey No. 160, there is no proper road to enable people to approach their houses. Therefore, road was proposed as 6 metres wide road. Moreover, it is submitted that there are no malafides and therefore petition is devoid of any merits and should be dismissed.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder and again alleged that acquisition is not in public interest and the construction and widening of the existing ODP road is for the benefit of the property owners. Therefore, it is not bonafide. The respondent no. 3 has filed an affidavit pointing out that acquisition was for construction and widening of the existing ODP road and the purpose is clear. For this reason joining respondent no. 4 as a party to the petition was unjust and therefore petition deserves to be dismissed.
With the assistance of the learned Counsel we have perused the petition, so also affidavits on record, we are of the view that Notification u/s 4 and Declaration u/s 6 clearly stipulate that the acquisition is for public purpose, namely, for construction and widening of existing ODP road. There is no averment in the petition as to what role respondent no. 4 played in the entire process. The petitioners'' arguments taken as whole does not dispute that the acquisition is not for public purpose. The lands have been proposed to be acquired for construction and widening of the existing ODP road and therefore, land owners have to be compensated in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Inherent in the petitioners'' argument is the admission that road widening is a public purpose. There only objection is to the width of the road and its alignment. How the road should be made is for the experts to determine and decide.
In such circumstances, it is not for this Court to substitute its views with that of the Authority by declaring that road can be 3 metres at one stretch and later on can be 6 metres. The road would be of 6 metres width. Equally, the State Government must ensure that throughout the widening and construction process if any encroachment is there, the same will be removed. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the not for public purpose and the petition deserves to be dismissed. No costs.