1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 627 OF 2009. 1. Shri Durga Bhicu Nadkarni son of late Bhicu Nadkarni aged 64 years, married and his wife 2. Smt. Milan Durga Nadkarni aged 62 years, married, both above residents of House No. Cotto Wado, Sanguem, Goa. 3. Shri Govind Bhicu Nadkarni son of Bhicu Nadkarni aged 52 years,married, and his wife 4. Smt.Sushama Govind Nadkarni aged 51 years,married, both above permanent residents of House No.69/A, Gundeabhat, Sanguem, Goa And temporary residents of TF1,III Floor, Paramount Shopping Complex, Navelim, Salcete Goa The Petitioners No.1,2 and 4 are represented herein by their constituted Attorney Shri Govind Bhicu Nadkarni-petitioner No.3. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The Executive Engineer, Government of Goa Office of the Executive Engineer, Div-VI (Roads-South) P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao, Goa 2. The Assistant Engineer, Government of Goa Sub Division II, Div-VI (Roads) P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao, Goa 3. The Junior Engineer, Government of Goa Sub. Division-II, Div-IV(Roads) 2 P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao,Goa 4. Superintending Engineer, Government of Goa Office of the Superintending Engineer, Circle IV (Roads and Bridges) P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao, Goa. 5. Principal Chief Engineer Government of Goa, P.W.D., Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 6. Government of Goa through its Chief Secretary Porvorim, Goa. 7. Cuncolim Municipal Council through its Chief Officer, Cuncolim, Goa 8. Collector of South Goa, Government of Goa, Collectorate Building, Margao, Goa. .. Respondents. Mr. Shambhu Kakodkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P. A. Kholkar, Advocate for the respondent No.7. Mr. S. Bandodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 8. CORAM :- S. J. VAZIFDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DATE :- 17 th March, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per S. J. Vazifdar, J.) Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable 3 forthwith. 2. The petitioners have sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to acquire their land and in the alternative to restore it to its original position. According to the petitioners, the respondents illegally tarred a part of their land for the purpose of making a public road. By an order dated 22.01.2010, the learned Counsel for the Municipal Council submitted that the Municipal Council had decided to acquire the property and that a proposal would be submitted to the Director, Municipal Administration. On behalf of the State Government, it was stated that if the proposal was received, appropriate orders would be passed at the earliest. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Council states that the Municipal Council has decided to acquire the said land and it has sought an N.O.C. from the Town and Country Planning Department (TCP Department) of the State Government in this regard. This was done by a communication dated 22.01.2010. Despite the same, the TCP Department has not processed the application. There is no justification for the delay. The matter is pending 4 for long. The respondents must either acquire the land or ensure that it is restored to its original position or to pay compensation for the same as per law. 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following order : (i) The respondents are at liberty to adopt proceedings for acquiring the said property on or before 31.05.2010 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, failing which it would be presumed that the respondents are not interested in acquiring the said property. In that event, liberty to the petitioners to adopt appropriate proceedings on the basis of the respondents are not interested in acquiring the property. (ii) Rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. (iv) Rule is made absolute accordingly. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J U. D. SALVI, J. SMA 5