1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. Writ Petition NO. 134 OF 2011. SHRI SHANKAR GOLTEKAR THROUGH HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI. SOIRU SHANKAR GOLTEKAR …...Petitioner. V/S STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS. …....Respondents. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for Respondents. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 7 h April, 2011. P.C. The petitioner's land had been identified for acquisition. The public purpose to set up a garbage treatment plant. 2. The Mapusa Municipal Council had requested the State to issue necessary notification for acquisition of this land for dumping of garbage, treatment/disposal plant. Objection that has been raised by the Petitioner and highlighted before us only pertains to a suitable land adjacent to the petitioner's property on which the plant could be set up. However, while dealing with the said objection, the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his report has observed that the land acquired is 2 in public interest and for setting up of the garbage, treatment/disposal plant. The land under acquisition is situated away from the residential houses and, therefore, bearing in mind the safety and health of the persons residing within the municipal limits it has been identified for setting up the plant. The Mapusa Municipal Council, after the orders of this Court has taken several measures and steps to set up the plant. We do not think that the view taken by the Authority that the land is suitable for setting up of the plant can be interfered within our limited jurisdiction. Once there is no dispute that the purpose is a “public purpose” and that the garbage, treatment/disposal plant needs to be set up urgently, then, this is not a fit case to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. More so, when the report of the Land Acquisition Officer read in its entirety, shows that he has duly applied his mind to the issue of suitability of the land under acquisition and availability of other plots and property in the vicinity. 3. The petition is, therefore dismissed. More so, when now Section 6 Declaration is issued and Authority has taken further steps under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. vn*