Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
LLEWELLYN FURTADO AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/09/1997
BENCH:
A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This Civil Appeal Calls in question an order of the
Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 427 of 1993 decided
on 24th August, 1993. The impugned order reads thus:-
"Rejected.
We do not wish to exercise writ
jurisdiction in view of return
filed by Land Acquisition Officer."
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants,
submits that in the writ petition filed in the High Court
specific allegations had been made that the acquisition
proceedings were vitiated on account of bar of limitation.
That it was averred that the declaration under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act had been made after the expiry of
one year from the date of publication of the Notification
under section 4 which vitiated the declaration as well as
the acquisition. According to the learned counsel, the
appellants in the writ petition had also raised a plea that
there was an unexplained and unreasonable gap of almost one
year between the date of the first publication of that
Notification in the official gazette later on and keeping in
view the fact that emergency provisions under Section 17 of
the Land Acquisition Act had been invoked, that gap would
defeat the very intention of the Amendment made in 1984. It
was pointed out that in the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondents in the High Court no specific reply was given to
these averments in the writ petition but the Division Bench
of the High Court did not examine that aspect of the case
and therefore judgement of the High Court cannot be
sustained.
We find force in the submission of the learned counsel.
The High Court simply dismissed the Writ petition "In view
of return filed by land acquisition Officer". We have been
unable to appreciate as to what circumstances weighed with
the High Court to dismiss the writ petition in limine.
Since, in the return filed by the Land Acquisition Officer,
factual averments were not controverted, their effect was
required to be considered by the High Court. No reasons have
been given and this Court has been deprived from testing the
reasons which might have weighed with the High Court while
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
rejecting the writ petition in liminie. Obligation to give
reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate
minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Since, arguable
points had been raised in the writ petition, the Bench
should have given some reasons, howsoever brief, in support
of its order. To say the least it was an unsatisfactory
manner of disposal of the writ petition. We, therefore, find
that the impugned order cannot be sustained and accept this
appeal. We set aside the impugned order of the High Court
dated 24th August, 1993 and remand the case to the High
court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. We,
request the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court to
have the petition placed before a Division Bench for an
early disposal.
This Court had granted an order of status quo as
regards possession only on 14th February, 1994. That interim
direction shall continue to remain in operation till the
writ petition is disposed of.
We clarify that nothing said hereinabove shall be
construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the
controversy.
The appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above. No
costs.