1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS. 232, 233, 234, 235 AND 236 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 232 OF 2008 Apa Bablo Gaunkar ... Petitioner versus State of Goa through Chief Secretary and others. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 233 OF 2008 Sonba Alias Somnath Vishnu Gaunkar ... Petitioner versus State of Goa through Chief Secretary and others. ... Respondents WRIT PETITON NO. 234 OF 2008 Mahadev Vishnu Gaunkar ... Petitioner versus State of Goa through Chief Secretary and others. ... Respondents 2 WRIT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2008 Krishna Guno Gaunkar ... Petitioners versus State of Goa through Chief Secretary and others. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 236 OF 2008 Laxman Raghoba Gaunkar ... Petitioner versus State of Goa through Chief Secretary and others. ... Respondents Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER, 2008. JUDGMENT(Per N. A. BRITTO, J.) These petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order 3 as they pertain to the same subject matter. The Petitioners belong to some of the families, out of 14 families, whose lands were acquired way back on or about 18-12-1987 for the purpose of Mahavir Wild Life Sanctuary at Mollem and the petitions essentially pertain to non compliance of the 15 directions given by this Court on 13-7-2000 in Writ Petition No.155 of 2000. In Writ Petition No.211 of 2001 on 27-11-2001 the Respondents stated that the said directions would be complied, but did not, and, the immediate cause for filing of these Writ Petitions appears to be letter dated 29-1-2008 by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Wild Life and Eco Tourism, by which the Petitioners were called upon to shift to the lands allotted to them in Survey No.29/1 of Mollem Village in Sanguem Taluka and were further called upon to submit compliance report. 2. The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Wild Life and Eco Tourism, in answer to the petitions has filed affidavits dated 29-5-2008, 10-11-2008, and an additional affidavit dated 11-12-2008 showing compliance of the directions given. In the affidavit dated 10-11-2008, the said Deputy Conservator of Forest, inter alia, has stated that the Petitioners are deliberately delaying the shifting of the residences from the said National Park area to the plots allotted to them in Survey No.29/1 in order to enjoy the crops and the produce from the declared National Park area and continue to reside in Survey No.60/2 though they have received the entire compensation towards the acquisition of the land. It is further stated that as per approximate calculations the total income earned from the produce of Survey No.60/2 is approximately estimated to Rs.20,00,000/- per year which is being 4 enjoyed by the Petitioners and others till date and therefore they are not interested in shifting their residences from the park area to the allotted plots. It is also stated that some of the Petitioners have already got their houses constructed at other places as a result they are not in a hurry to officially vacate the said land of Survey No.60/2 with the intention to enjoy the benefit of the crops/fruits from Survey No.60/2. In the affidavit dated 11-12-2008 it is stated that total area of 10,000 sq. meters is allotted to the Petitioners and others which works out as follows:- (i) Area towards 14 plots ... 4200 sq. meters. (ii) Area towards playground (plot No.17) ... 3500 sq. meters. (iii) Area towards open space (plot No.16) ... 390 sq. meters. (iv) Area towards roads and drains ... 910 sq. meters. (v) Area towards the temple (plot No.15) 1000 sq. meters. ---------------------- TOTAL : 10,000 sq. meters 3. The layout plan prepared by the Forest Surveyor is at page 193 of Writ Petition No.232 of 2008. The area of the plot 17 has now been corrected to 3500 sq. meters and that of plot 16 to 390 sq. meters. The approval granted by the Village Panchayat is at page 197 and that of the Town and Country Planning Department is at page 195. It appears that at one stage a joint inspection was taken 5 and certain works were undertaken to be constructed and compliance of the same is reflected in the affidavit dated 10-11-2008. 4. Although, the directions of this Court dated 13-7-2000 in Writ Petition No.155 of 2000 were not complied with by 30-1-2001 as contemplated, and as subsequently undertaken, one fails to understand as to why the Petitioners were complacent and inactive till they received letter dated 29-1-2008. The Petitioners could have come to this Court, prior to that, to compel the Respondents to comply with the directions and therefore the delay can be attributed to the Petitioners as well, as the Petitioners chose not to approach this Court within a reasonable time, after 30-1-2001. Most of the Petitioners have obtained their sanads regarding the allotment of plots in the sub-division and in case any of the members of the said 14 families, on account of the death of any member has not obtained the sanad, they would be entirely free to approach the Collector and obtain the same. We have no doubt in our minds that the Collector, if approached, by the widow of the deceased members of the said families would promptly grant the sanads to them. 5. We have also no doubt in our minds that since permissions have been obtained both from the Panchayat as well as the Town and Country Planning Department the Petitioners or the other members of the said 14 families would have any difficulty in obtaining permissions for constructing their houses in the plots allotted to them. The high tension electricity line is in the process of being 6 removed the work of removal of which has already started. The Respondents have assured that the service line would be erected no sooner the houses are built. 6. There is no dispute that the sub-division has been made after acquiring 10,000 sq. meters of land of Survey No.29/1. The said land was put at the disposal of the Deputy Conservator by the Collector by letter dated 22/28-12-2006 and only because the existing 3 meters road is now included in a 10 meters wide road left for the sub-division, the Petitioners can have no substantial grievance against the same. 7. To reiterate, there is no dispute that 10,000 sq. meters have been allotted to the Petitioners and shown on the plan which is at page 193. Likewise, there is no dispute that the Petitioners have been issued with sanads and three others who have expired, their widows would be entitled to obtain the same by making an application to the Collector. There is no dispute about the area of each of the plots allotted to the Petitioners or any of the members of the said 14 families. 8. Considering the response filed to the petition as on today, we find that the grievances of the Petitioners have been redressed by the Respondents. All that is now required is the will on the part of the Petitioners and others to shift their residences from Survey Nos.60/2 to 29/1 to the newly allotted places. 7 9.. Shri Rivonkar, however, assures that the Petitioners and others will not be asked to vacate their houses till 30-4-2009. Accepting the said statement, we dismiss the petitions as infructuous. 10. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners seeks stay of the operation of this Judgment. Considering the facts and consideration of the case we are inclined not to grant his request. The request for stay is therefore hereby rejected. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD