1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 115 OF 2008 Village Panchayat of Se-Old Goa, through its Sarpanch, Tiswadi-Goa & Anr. ......... Petitioners V/s State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa & 3 Ors. ........ Respondents Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. M. Salkar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 4. Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. S.N. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : A.P. DEHSPANDE & N.A. BRITTO, J.J. DATE : 25th NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C.:- The petitioner no.1 in this petition is the Village Panchayat of Se-Old Goa, whereas the petitioner no.2 is the Sarpanch. This petition has been filed questioning the legality and propriety of 2 acquisition of land in the village Se-Old Goa by issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 07/03/2006 and a declaration under Section 6 on 2/11/2006. The acquisition is for the purpose of setting up of a garbage disposal plant and for land fill sites for the Corporation of City of Panaji. The respondents have filed their reply and opposed the petition. A preliminary objection is raised to the locus standi of the present petitioners to institute this Writ Petition. The petition has been filed by invoking the private rights of the petitioners. The land proposed to be acquired does not belong to the petitioners, but is owned by private parties. What is to be seen is whether the petitioners could be said to be “persons interested”, providing a locus for instituting this petition. 2. Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act defines expression “person interested”. It reads thus : “3(b) the expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.” 3 Section 5A(3) which introduces a deeming fiction for the purpose of Section 5A, reads thus : “5A(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the lands were acquired under this Act.” A conjoint reading of both the provisions would make it clear that a person would have a right to object to the acquisition if he possess the character of “person interested”. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the meaning ascribed to the expression “person interested” cannot be limited by having recourse to Section 3(b) or Section 5A(3) of the Act. In his submission, a wider meaning has to be given to the expression “person interested” and, with a view to substantiate this submission, he places reliance on the phraseology used in later part of Section 5A(1) - “Any person interested in any land ..... object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be”. The submission is that had the legislature intended to restrict the right to object of any 4 person having interest in any land, there was no need to permit such a person to raise objections to the acquisition of land in the locality. Though, in the first blush the submission appears attractive, a closer scrutiny of the relevant provisions, makes it clear that right to object cannot be so widely interpreted so as to permit a third party to object to acquisition of land wherein he has no direct interest. In our opinion, a right to object to the acquisition of land in the locality will have to be so construed so as to vest a person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act, with a right to object to the acquisition of land or any land in the locality, provided his land is also being acquired. A person, thus, would be in a position to object acquisition of his own land or any land in the locality provided the said land is also covered by the same notification issued under Section 4, subjection (1) of the Act which proposes to acquire the land of the person concerned. Any other interpretation would defeat the object of the Act than to subserve the same. 4. In our considered view, we do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Panchayat or Sarpanch of the Panchayat would have locus to object to 5 the acquisition of land, which does not belong to them but belongs to other private parties. In this view of the matter, as the petitioners do not have any locus, we decline to entertain this petition and dismiss the same on the ground of want of locus standi. It may not be out of place to mention that besides the present Writ Petition, there is one more Writ Petition filed by a private party challenging the acquisition of the same land. A.P. DEHSPANDE, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm