IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 711 OF 2009 SHRI SHARAD RAMNATH FATERPEKAR AND 10 ORS. ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA AND 3 ORS. ... Respondent Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1,2 & 4. Mr. V.B. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nuno Noronha & Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocates for Respondent No.3. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 5th March, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. The petitioners had filed writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 21/1999, raising challenge to notification of acquisition, wherein according to the petitioners, their piece of land was subjected to acquisition proceedings. Notification was issued in the year 1997 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : F.I. Rebello & P.V. Hardas, JJ.) by an order dated 30/06/2003. Para 4 of the order reads as follows; "4. In the light of that, the following order:- Affidavit on behalf of the Authority that they are applying for withdrawal of Notification accepted. The proposal to be sent within two weeks from today. On the Government receiving the same to pass the necessary Order within one week thereafter and also get the same published thereafter within two weeks." 3. The Government of Goa issued a notification in the year, 2008 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land specified in the schedule for public purpose, viz. Land Acquisition for widening of ODP (Outline Development Plan) road and construction of new road at Bhatulem, Panaji City of Tiswadi Taluka. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners' objections were heard in view of provisions of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. By an order dated 16/06/2009, the Deputy Collector SDO and LAO sub-division, Panaji passed orders on the objections raised in exercise of power under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. This Writ Petition came to be filed in the month of November, 2009. 6. In substance, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. M.S. Joshi, urged that the purpose of acquisition of this land is the same as it was in the year 1997, which was to benefit respondent no.3, Mr. Adam Ismail Khan. It was submitted that respondent no.3 is a resourceful person, close to persons in political arena and due to which a fresh notification came to be issued for sole benefit of respondent no.3. The Counsel submits that a show is tried to be put up by the State authorities, including the development authority, while demonstrating that there would be a 100 meters long road having width of 15 meters. The Counsel submitted that earlier the subject road was 75 meters in length. Now it has been made 100 meters long. The Counsel submits that the subject road stretches up to 2 kilo meters and the petitioners raised an objection that the planning authority and the State shall widen the road up to 2 kilo meters. 7. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the sketch plan which is annexed by the petitioners at page 115. 8. Under the order passed by this Court dated 9/11/2009, Writ Petition no. 579/2009 was directed to be taken up along with the present writ petition. 9. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, appearing for respondent no.5, North Goa Planning and Development Authority placed heavy reliance on the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.21/1999, which was filed by the petitioners herein. The Counsel further referred to provisions of Planning and Development Authority regulations, 1989 and relevant provisions of Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. It was urged by the Counsel that widening of the road is part of ODP. The road is to be made 15 meters in width due to traffic congestion and, therefore, the planning development proposed accordingly. Based on the order passed by the Deputy Collector, dealing with objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, and the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in proceedings of Writ Petition No.21/1999, the learned Counsel submitted that phase wise the acquisition for widening of subject road would be done. The Government and the planning authorities have to take into consideration other necessary and relevant considerations including financial burden while the state initiates acquisition proceedings. By drawing our attention to notification dated 20/06/2008, the learned Counsel pointed out that 70 meters of land of the petitioners would be subjected to acquisition. An area of 100 square meters of land of respondent no.3 would be subjected to the acquisition proceedings. The Counsel contradicted allegations of malafides and favoritism made by the petitioners. 10. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.B. Nadkarni, appearing for respondent no.3 supported the submissions raised by the Counsel appearing for respondent no.5 and countered the allegations made by the petitioners against respondent no.3. 11. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents had shown their readiness to even file affidavit in reply. 12. The learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners were dealt with in detail by the Deputy Collector and then reasoned order was passed which the petitioners failed to annex to the petition. The Counsel submitted that the petitioners could have challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector at the earliest but for the reasons best known to the petitioners, the said order was not challenged. 13. We have perused relevant documents including notification issued in the year, 1997, 2008 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of subject property. We find that the Division Bench while disposing of the writ petition no.21/1999, filed by the petitioners, observed that the proposal of acquisition be sent within two weeks from the day of passing of the order and it was directed that the Government shall pass necessary order in a week's time thereafter and get the same published within two weeks. It took near about five years for the planning authority and the Government to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings for widening of road. We find from the submissions advanced by the Counsel appearing for respondent no.5 that the planning authority would proceed to widen the road phase wise. 14. We have noticed that the Deputy Collector had in detail discussed the objections raised by the petitioners. The petitioners are losing 70 square meters of their land out of the total acquired area which will be about 900 square meters. Even respondent no.3 is losing about 100 square meters of his land. It is pertinent to mention that in the present notification, the State has clearly mentioned that the acquisition proceedings are initiated for widening of the road and construction of new road at Bhatulem, Panaji City of Tiswadi Taluka. In the paragraph which was quoted in affidavit in reply filed in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.21/1999, the authorities had made it amply clear that appropriate steps to acquire the land for the purpose of widening of the road would be taken, which incidentally provided access to the property bearing Chalta No.13 of P.T. Sheet No.125. 15. Prima facie, assessment of the material placed on record demonstrates that the allegation of malafide, which is the main ground raised in the petition, is not sustainable. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, stated that petitioners do not have any objection to the subject acquisition if 2 kilo meter road is widened. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5, in response to the same, made a statement that the phase wise acquisition proceedings would be undertaken for widening of road. 16. In this view of the matter, we find that no interference is called for by this Court in respect of widening of ODP road, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, for staying further proceedings of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act or to set aside notification issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act. It is made clear that observations made in this order shall not affect the merits of issues raised in Writ Petition no.579/2009. The petition is accordingly dismissed. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH