w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Max De Loyola Furtado v/s State of Goa by the Secretary (Revenue) & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- MAX INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L85100PB2015PLC039155

Company & Directors' Information:- MAX INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100PB2015PLC039155

Company & Directors' Information:- MAX CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U24231PB1996PLC018766

Company & Directors' Information:- MAX INDIA LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U24232PB1982PLC004841

Company & Directors' Information:- P G MAX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22219KL2012PTC031856

Company & Directors' Information:- MAX I. LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB2016PLC045450

    WRIT PETITION NO. 450 OF 2010

    Decided On, 07 July 2010

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Goa

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. OKA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. REIS

    For the Petitioner: A.F. Diniz, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate.



Judgment Text

ORAL JUDGMENT: (A.S. OKA, J.)


1. Rule. Learned Government Advocate waives service for the respondents.


2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, it will be necessary to make a reference to few facts of the case. On 29th August, 2006, a notification dated 24th August, 2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ?the said Act?), was published by the Land Acquisition Officer. Out of the properties notified, land surveyed under Survey No.53/12 admeasuring 465 sq. metres and the land surveyed under Survey No. 54/16 admeasuring 125 sq. metres of Village Orlim, Taluka Salcete were notified under the said notification. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said properties. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act dated 28th March, 2008 was published in newspaper on 29th March, 2008. Admittedly, the aforesaid two properties held by the petitioner do not find place in the said declaration under Section 6 of the said Act.


3. An addendum dated 29th September, 2009 was published in the newspaper on 2nd October, 2009. By the said addendum, the notification issued under Section 6 dated 28th March, 2008 was sought to be amended by incorporating the land surveyed under Survey no.53/12 admeasuring an area of 264 and the land surveyed under Survey No.54/16 admeasuring an area of 115 sq. metres in the original notification under Section 6 of the said Act.


4. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the acquisition proceedings initiated on the basis of the aforesaid notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, apart from other legal submissions, submitted that the declaration under Section 6 ought to have been made in respect of the properties of the petitioner within a period of one year from the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published. He submitted that, admittedly, in so far as the properties of the petitioner are concerned, the declaration was not made within the stipulated period of one year. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the acquisition proceedings as far as the petitioner's properties are concerned stand vitiated. Learned Government Advocate invited our attention to the addendum dated 29th September, 2009 and submitted that by the addendum only a correction has been carried out to the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act by adding certain properties and, therefore, no interference is called for.


5. We have perused the declaration under Section 6 and the addendum dated 29th September, 2009. We find that the lands surveyed under Survey no. 53/12 and 54/16 do not find place in the declaration under Section 6. The said properties were sought to be added by the addendum dated 29th September, 2009 after a lapse of more than 3 years from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Even assuming that the addendum can be treated as a declaration under Section 6, the same has been issued after expiry of a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. The said addendum will operate prospectively. It is not the case made out by the respondents that the addendum has been issued to correct accidental or inadvertent error. It is, therefore, obvious that the acquisition proceedings relating to the aforesaid properties of the petitioner stand vitiated. The declaration under Section 6 in respect of the said two properties has been made after expiry of 1 year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act.


6. Hence, we allow the petition by passing the following Order :


(A) The impugned Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 24th August, 2006 stands quashed and set aside only in so far as land surveyed under Survey no.53/12 admeasuring an area

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of 264 sq. metres and the land surveyed under Survey No.54/16 admeasuring an area of 115 sq. metres of Village Orlim, Taluka Salcete, are concerned. (B) We make it clear that the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act and the addendum dated 29th September, 2009 stand quashed and set aside only as far as aforesaid two properties are concerned. (C) Rule is made absolute in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
O R