1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 676/2008 Shri Yeshwant Ghadi, 80 years of age residing at House No.675, Santra Xete, Aldona, Bardez, Goa through his duly constituted Attorney Shri Manguesh Yeshwant Ghadi, 40 years of age and residing at House No. 675, Santra Xete, Aldona, Bardez, Goa . ............ Petitioner. Versus. 1. State of Goa, through Revenue Secretary, Government of Goa, with its Office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 2. Director of Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of Goa, Campal, Panaji, Goa. 3. Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Government of Goa with his office at Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. 4. St. Thomas Girls High School, through its Head Mistress, Aldona, Bardez, Goa. ........ Respondents. 2 Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ. & N.A. BRITTO, J. Date : 21st November, 2008. ORAL ORDER : (PER CHIEF JUSTICE) The present petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 229/08, challenging the Notification/declaration dated 15.2.2008 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of land bearing Survey No.51/30 of Village Aldona. According to the petitioner, he filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act which were heard and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. The Notification/declaration issued under Section 6 was unsustainable in law. However, it was submitted that Section 4 Notification would remain in force and operation. 2. The above writ petition was disposed of in terms of Minutes of Order as recorded on 25.6.08. The Minutes of Oder read 3 thus : “ The aforesaid petition be disposed of in terms of the following Minutes of Order : 1. The Notification dated 15/2/2008 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stands withdrawn by the Respondents. However, Notification under Section 4 dated 15/2/2007, would remain in force and operation. 2. Petitioner's objections to the acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act shall be considered in accordance with law by the Land Acquisition Officer. The said objections of the Petitioner shall be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer within a period of one month. The Petitioner shall not adjourn the hearing beyond the period of 15 days. The Petitioner shall appear before the Land Acquisition Officer on 1st July 2008 at 11:00 a.m. for hearing. 3. If in the event, Government issues Notification under Section 6 of the Act, the Petitioner shall not raise ground of limitation between the issuance of Section 4 and Section 6 Notifications of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said issue, 4 point and contention is expressly waived by the Petitioner. 4. All the contentions are raised in the present petition are kept open. 5. The petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Minutes of Order with no order as to costs.” In the above agreed terms, the writ petition was disposed of. 3. The petitioner was heard by the Dy. Collector and S.D.O. Mapusa, Goa and the detailed objections filed by the petitioner under Section 5-A were considered and rejected vide Order dated 21.7.2008. The said Authority further recommended that the Notification under Section 6 of the Act be issued and the draft Notification be submitted to the Government. 4. The correctness, propriety and legality of the order dated 21.7.2008 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. The principal ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the public purpose for which the acquisition was made, was not a public purpose in substance. But the land has been acquired for providing a playground to the school owned by the Society, namely St. Thomas Girls High School. It is then contended that the procedure provided 5 under Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act ought to have been followed and normal acquisition procedure could not be taken recourse to by the Government. We find no substance in this petition. The impugned order dated 21.7.08 which has been passed by the Authority exercising quasi-judicial power, fairly meets the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is while referring to the comments of the Director of Sports and Youth Affairs, the Authority recorded the findings as under : “ The comments of Director of Sports and Youth Affairs were called on the objectors applications dated 14.8.2007 filed by Shri Yeshwant Ghadi wherein it is stated that there exists 13 coconut trees, 1 jackfruit tree, 1 pump house and 3 ponds in the land proposed to be acquired. The Department also stated that under its existing scheme the “Land Acquisition for development of Government Village School Playground” acquires land for developing the same into playground for benefit of students and non students of the locality. The Government does not concentrate on individual schools. The aim of the Government is public in nature where the students in the locality and non students are equally benefited. Hence it is stated as public purpose. Further it is stated that the St. 6 Thomas High School will be one of the beneficiaries of the scheme. Under the above mentioned scheme the schools, clubs nearby along with the local youths will be benefited and the Department reiterates that the land acquisition is for public purpose. After hearing the Ld. Advocate of Shri Yeshwant Ghadi it is seen that the main objection of the objector is that the proposed land acquisition for development of Government Village School Play Ground is for St. Thomas High School and from the comments of the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs it is seen that the Department is acquiring the land under the existing scheme 'Land Acquisition for Development of Government Village Play Ground for benefits of students and non students of the locality and is not mean for individual school and the aim of acquisition is public nature and is for a public purpose and therefore the undersigned does not find substance in the said objection.” 5. While examining the correctness of an order passed by the authorities in exercise of their quasi judicial power while dealing with objections under Section 5-A of the Act, this Court does not sit as a 7 Court of Appeal. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, merely because another view was possible or could have been taken, will be a no ground for the Court to judicially intervene in the acquisition proceedings. In fact, a fresh notification under Section 6 has also been issued on 2.9.2008. There can be no doubt that the land has been acquired for the public purpose, namely a playground of the Government Village School. The petitioner himself has placed on record a site plan (Exhibit “A”). In details of the site plan, as spelt out in Exhibit “A”, it has been noticed that “Site plan of the land proposed to be acquired for development of playground for the benefit of the students and youths of rural locality at Aldona Village of Bardez Taluka, by the Director of Sports & Youth Affairs, Campal, Panaji- Goa.” The Notification also spells out specifically that it has been acquired for providing a playground. It is interesting to note that in his letter dated 27.3.2007 (Exhibit “F”), the petitioner himself has referred that the land was sought to be acquired for development of a playground of Government Village School at Aldona. This, itself, dilutes effect of the contention raised before us. The order is based upon correct appreciation of the record and does not suffer from any patent error of law or logic. The writ petition dismissed. No order as to 8 costs. CHIEF JUSTICE. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm.