1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 506 OF 2007 Shri Ramnath Lumo Mangueshkar .... Petitioner V/s State of Goa through Chief Secretary & 2 Ors. .... Respondents Mr. R.S. Sardessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M. Salkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2008 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The appeal filed under Section 38 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1978 for quashing the modified Outline Development Plan, as per notification dated 5/12/2003, published on 12/12/2003 is rejected and that is how the original appellant is before this Court. 3. It is undisputed that based upon the said modified Outline Development Plan, the proceedings for acquisition of lands covered by the said Outline Plan were initiated. These proceedings were under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 4 notification and Section 6 declaration were also issued. Section 9 notices were issued and thereafter under Section 11 of 2 the said Act, an award was rendered. Upon the award being rendered, possession has been taken of this subject land. Now, the acquisition proceedings/grant of compensation are being put in issue in separate and independent proceedings at the instance of the petitioner/appellant. In such circumstances, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by going into the contentions and pleas raised by the petitioner's Advocate to challenge the appellate order. It is urged that the appellate order is bad in law, because the learned Judge should not have rejected the appeal as being barred by limitation. Additionally, the learned Judge should not have rejected the appeal on the ground that the Outline Plan had been duly notified and the petitioner/appellant was aware of the same. Considering the subsequent developments and finding that proceedings pursuant to the outline modification having been initiated and completed, there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The petition is rendered academic and infructuous on account of the subsequent development. It is therefore not necessary to consider the pleas raised in the petition and it is accordingly disposed of. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NH/-