1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.637/2007. Nazareth Cabral and 63 Ors. ........ Petitioner. Versus State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and 3 Ors. ........ Respondents. Mr. S.G.Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Talaulikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.R.Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1&2. Mr. A.N.S.Nadkarni with Mr. H.D.Naik, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. WITH P.I.L.WRIT PETITION NO.17/2007. Suo Moto ........ Petitioner. Versus The City Corporation of Panaji Through Chief Officer and 3 Ors. ........ Respondents. Mr. S.G.Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Talaulikar, Advocate for 64. Mr. S. Vehidulla,Addl. Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.2. Mr. A.N.S.Nadkarni with Mr. H.D.Naik, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.359/2000. Shri Inacio A. Lourenco ........ Petitioner. 2 Versus State of Goa and Anr. ........ Respondents. Mr. N. N. Sardesai, Amicus Curiae. Mr. S.G.Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Talaulikar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 to 7. Coram :- R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J. N.A.BRITTO, J. Date : - 4th February, 2008. P.C. : (PER R.M.S.KHANDEPARKER,J.) Heard. As regards claiming of the Dona Paula jetty area by removing the stalls/ hawkers / squatters in that locality, only the difficulty which is expressed on behalf of the State Government is the order dated 27.11.2000 passed in W.P. No.359/2000. The perusal of the order dated 27.11.2000 in writ petition No.359/2000 disclose that by that order the relief in terms of prayer clause (b) of the said petition was granted. The prayer clause (b) of the said writ petition reads thus, “That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be directed to maintain status-quo in respect of acquisition of land under survey No.185/1, 254/1 at Dona Paula and in the matter of effecting any payments from the public funds for the purposes of said acquisition and to provide amenities to encroachers of public land. ” Plain reading of the said order would disclose that restraint imposed in the nature of maintenance of status-quo relates to the acquisition 3 proceedings and not in relation to utilisation of the land sought to be acquired. It is not in dispute that while initiating land acquisition proceeding, the Govt had exercised the powers U/s.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 and even the possession was taken. The interim order nowhere relates to the possession of the property or utilisation of the land on having acquired possession thereof. The contentions that the order dated 27.11.2000 in the W.P. No.359/2000 is creating hurdle to the respondent for taking necessary action to utilise the said land as hawking zone temporarily, is totally devoid of substance. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation has submitted that the Corporation is ready to implement the directions issued by the Court under impugned order in W.P.637/2007 within 4 weeks. While accepting the said statement on behalf of Corporation and as Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also shown willingness to give necessary co-operation in that regard to the Corporation, we clarify that the order dated.27.11.2000 in W.P.No.359/2000 will not come in the way of the respondent in utilising the land under acquisition as hawking zone temporarily and further vacate our order dated 8.1.2008 in W.P. No.637/2007 in that regard. We make it clear that we have not adjudicated any issue sought to be raised in Writ Petition No.359/2000. At the same time, in view of the fact that the respondent-Government has already taken over the 4 possession of the land in question in exercise of powers U/s.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 we don't find any difficulty for the Government in utilising the said land temporarily subject to the decision in the said writ petition. We also make it clear that it will be entirely for the respondent to identify the area as hawking zone. We have not expressed any opinion that the land in question should necessarily be the hawking zone. That is a matter to be decided by the respondent – Government and the Corporation. We expect to have proper coordination between the Government and Corporation in the matter of removal of stalls, hawkers and squatters from the jetty area and to do the needful in the matter of permitting them to carry out their business at alternate site in orderly manner. Apart from what is stated herein above no other issue is decided in this petition, though various other issues were sought to be initially canvassed. W.P. 637/2007 and P.I.L. W.P.17/2007 are accordingly disposed of with the direction to file compliance report, in relation to above order passed today, on or before 28.03.2008 and to be placed before the Court on 31.3.2008. The said two petitions stand disposed of. 5 As regards W.P. No.359/2000, same shall be listed for the final hearing. Authenticated copy of this order be issued to all the parties. R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. N.A.BRITTO, J. SMA