SUDHEER PRABHAKAR DESAI, SON OF PRABHAKAR SHANKAR DESAI Vs. STATE OF GOA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-285
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 09,2017

Sudheer Prabhakar Desai, Son Of Prabhakar Shankar Desai Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

F.M. Reis, J - (1.)Heard Mr. D. J. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, learned Advocate General along with Mr. P. Dangui, Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
(2.)In the above petition, the petitioner, inter alia, prays for a direction to quash and set aside the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as the "said Act of 1894") dated 4.11.2003, as well as the subsequent Notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 and the Award dated 27/04/2007.
(3.)The facts of the case are that a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 came to be published on 4/11/2003, showing an intention of the Appropriate Government to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner surveyed under Survey No. 112/0 of Village Morjim, Pernem Taluka for the construction of a road. Thereafter, a Notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 was published on 9/3/2005. After, complying with the formalities under the said Act of 1894, an Award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) on 27/04/2007. Thereafter, as the compensation for the land was not deposited, nor paid to the petitioner, nor was the possession taken, the petitioner addressed a letter to the LAO whereby the petitioner was informed that no compensation has been paid to the interested parties, and the money is also not deposited in terms of the said Act of 1894 by the Acquiring Department. It is further pointed out that in the records of the LAO, there is also a Roznama entry on 6/1/2011, inter alia, stating that no compensation has been forwarded by the Acquiring Department. The petitioner also received the information on 06.01.2011 that the possession of the said land was not taken by the LAO. It is further case of the petitioner that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as the "Acquisition Act of 2013") came into force on 1/1/2014 and according to the petitioner, as the compensation has not been paid nor possession taken, the acquisition proceedings would itself lapse in terms of the Acquisition Act of 2013. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed the above petition for the aforesaid reliefs.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.