ZUARI INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5, Shri R. Gawas, holding for Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Shri H.D. Naik, Advocate for respondent No. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case stated by the petitioners, are that petitioner No. 1 is a Company which has an industrial establishment in the State of Goa. Petitioner No. 2 is an employee and shareholder of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 is a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner No. 1. It is contended that respondent No. 1 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act") dated 5th February, 2007, inter alia, intending to acquire the land bearing survey Nos. 188 (part), 189 (part) and 190 (part), admeasuring 1,81,200 sq. metres for the purpose of expansion of the Sancoale Industrial Estate, Phase-V. The petitioners, thereafter, learnt that the said acquisition was being initiated by respondents No. 1 and 4 to acquire the said land for respondent No. 6 which is a private party and a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. Despite the objections raised by the petitioners, the report was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A of the said Act, recommending acquisition of the said land. Accordingly, the notification under Section 6 of the said Act came to be issued on 19th April, 2007.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioners filed the above petition, challenging the notification issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the said Act on different grounds.

(3.) The respondents filed their reply, disputing the contentions raised by the petitioners in the above petition. It is their case, inter alia, that the acquisition was for a public purpose. It may also be mentioned here that after filing of the above petition, the petitioners also filed an application for amendment, incorporating some relevant aspects which later on came to their knowledge. The petitioners, inter alia, submitted that the acquisition was essentially for the private purpose of respondent No. 6. To substantiate the said allegation, the petitioners have also produced some documentary evidence. The said contentions were also disputed by the respondents.