Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 75 (BOM)

Shamsundar Vassudeo Kamat v. State of Goa

2010-01-15

N.A.BRITTO, NARESH H.PATIL

body2010
NARESH H. PATIL, J.:- Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent. 2. All these writ petitions raise identical questions and issues. The challenge to the notification under which acquisition proceedings commenced, is also one and the same and hence, they are being finally disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.30/2008 seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside Notification No.22/ 6/2006-RD dated 7.3.06 issued by the respondents under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act of 1894" for short) and the Notification dated 1.11.06, issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and consequently the A ward dated 13.11.08, made by the Deputy Collector (Revenue) under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 for the acquisition of land for a purported public purpose i.e. Integrated Sanitary Landfill and Solid Waste Management Site for the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) and for other consequential reliefs. 4. In substance, the contention of the petitioner is that there exists a property known as "BONA TO" surveyed under 20/2 of Village Bainguinim, Taluka Tiswadi, which is referred to as "the said property". The said property originally belonged to Mr. Vassudeo Vishwanath Kamat, father of the petitioner who, according to the petitioner, was the sole owner of the said property. The State, issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 dated 7.3.06. The petitioner learnt that vide letter dated 24.8.05, respondent No.3 - CCP applied to respondent No.4-the Goa State Pollution Control Board for authorisation for setting up a Solid Waste Management Site in the said property Accordingly, Notification under Section 6 was issued on 2.11.06 and the impugned A ward was made by the Dy. Collector on 13.11.06 under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. 5. Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has mainly challenged the acquisition proceedings and consequent declaration of A ward. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Collector and LAO, North Goa District, Panaji, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. invited objections in respect of the proposed acquisition of land. The petitioner. by communication dated 23.6.06, lodged his objections. The petitioner stated in the said communication that the notice under Section 5-A, addressed to the late father of the petitioner, by the Dy. invited objections in respect of the proposed acquisition of land. The petitioner. by communication dated 23.6.06, lodged his objections. The petitioner stated in the said communication that the notice under Section 5-A, addressed to the late father of the petitioner, by the Dy. Collector (Rev), was against the Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi dated 25.9.2000 and the Rules framed there under. It was also stated that the Dy. Collector failed to comply with the requirements as required under the said Notification, as published in the Gazette of Government of India and a copy of the said Gazette was annexed thereto for ready reference. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Dy. Collector has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner at all. In the submission of the Counsel, by communication dated 1/11/06, the Dy. Collector (Revenue) addressed to the Under Secretary (Revenue), Revenue Department, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa simply observed in the concluding paragraph that the land under acquisition is situated at Village Baiguinim in Tiswadi Taluka and the said land is suitable for the purpose for which it is being acquired. The Dy. Collector did not express any opinion as to whether the land is required to be acquired or is suitable for the acquisition purpose or any public purpose is involved in the acquisition of the land. In the submission of the Counsel, there is total non-application of mind by the Dy. Collector. In the proceedings of the present writ petition, the petitioner raised several other grounds in support of the contention that the impugned notification and the acquisition proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside. In substance, the petitioner has raised a ground before this Court that the CCP has no authority to acquire land beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (for short "MSW Rules 2000") were not followed. The petitioner contends that the local residents cannot be put to prejudice and face consequences of garbage from other place being dumped in their village in such a close proximity to residential areas, exposing them to all sorts of risk, besides having negative impact on the environment. The petitioner contends that the local residents cannot be put to prejudice and face consequences of garbage from other place being dumped in their village in such a close proximity to residential areas, exposing them to all sorts of risk, besides having negative impact on the environment. It is contended that the garbage disposal site is in close proximity to the water pipe line which supplies water to entire city of Panjim, putting the entire city of Panjim to health risks and in violation of rights of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said site is in close proximity to habitation clusters, as also monuments that have been conferred with the status of world heritage structures, and location in an area of cultural, historic and religious importance. The proposed acquisition of the petitioner's land for dumping garbage is in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as, according to the petitioner, it amounts to an expropriation of the petitioner's land for that purpose, and that besides being impermissible in the manner in which it is sought to be done, is not envisaged and/or contemplated under the Act. The petitioner submits that the land which is being acquired is in excess of the requirement of the CCP. Neither consent of the Village Panchayat concerned for setting up site for garbage disposal is obtained, nor any sanction from the Goa State Pollution Control Board for such purpose is sought by the respondents. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1894, which are mandatory in nature, are not followed. Hence, the entire acquisition proceeding is vitiated. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further referred to the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Acquisition Rules, 1972 and Schedule III of the MSW Rules, 2000, notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi on 25.9.2000. Schedule III of the said Rules is titled as "Specifications for Landfill Sites". Clause 8, under heading "Site Selection" provides that the landfill site shall be away from habitation clusters, forest areas, water bodies, monuments, National Parks, Wetlands and places of important cultural, historical or religious interest. Clause 9 provides that a buffer zone of no-development shall be maintained around landfill site and shall be incorporated in the Town Planning Department's land-use plans. 8. Clause 9 provides that a buffer zone of no-development shall be maintained around landfill site and shall be incorporated in the Town Planning Department's land-use plans. 8. In support of the contentions of the petitioner, reliance was placed on the following case law: a) In Charles F. Pais Vs. State of Goa and others, [2004 Goa L.R. 389], Division of this Court in paragraph 6, has held thus: "7. Next we have to consider whether on the declaration under Section 6 being struck down whether the A ward is liable to be set aside and possession restored. In our opinion, we need not set aside the entire Award as it will be clearly severable. Other applicants are not before this court and have not challenged the declaration under Section 6 nor the Award nor the taking possession of the land. Exhibit F as we have noted. clearly shows that the acquisition is on two sides which is separated by a survey No.97/ 29. The Award, therefore, is clearly severable. In our opinion, therefore, the reliefs can be restricted only to the acquisition insofar as Survey Nos.97/22 and 97/23 are concerned." (b) In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and ors. (AIR 2005 SC 3520), the Apex Court in para 18 observed thus : "18. Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. Upon receipt of objections, the Collector is required to make such fUl1her enquiry as he may think necessary whereupon he must submit a report to the appropriate Government in respect of the land which is the subject matter of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said Report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to forward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a Report together with the records of the case the Government is to render a decision thereupon. It is now well-settled in view of a catena of decisions that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason. (See Kalumiya Karimmiya Vs. The State of Gujarat and others, (1977) 1 SCC 715 and Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, (2000)7 SCC 296 )." (c) In the case of Harakchand Misirimal Solanki Vs. The Collector, Collector Office, Land Acquisition Branch, Pune and ors. (See Kalumiya Karimmiya Vs. The State of Gujarat and others, (1977) 1 SCC 715 and Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, (2000)7 SCC 296 )." (c) In the case of Harakchand Misirimal Solanki Vs. The Collector, Collector Office, Land Acquisition Branch, Pune and ors. (2009(1) ALL MR 799), the Division Bench, Bombay High Court, Principal Seat. at Mumbai considered the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1894 and observed in paragraph 65 as under: "65. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold : a) The requirement of the Collector "to take order for acquisition of the land" as contemplated by the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act is a substantive requirement of the said Act and is not just a procedural requirement. b) The aforesaid requirement is mandatory in nature and is not just directory. c) It is not open to the Collector to comply with such a requirement by way of ratification i.e. by obtaining a post facto sanction with retrospective effect from the appropriate government or from the officer authorised by it in this behalf, or as the case may be, the Commissioner. d) Such order for acquisition of land must be granted/ issued with proper application of mind and by giving reasons in support thereof. e) The previous approval granted by the appropriate government or its authorized officer under the first proviso to Section 11 (1) of the said Act does not amount to and cannot be considered as sufficient compliance with this requirement." 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed an application for reference under protest, but has not withdrawn the amount granted ,by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.03/2009 contended that there is total noncompliance of the provisions of Section 5-A and that the mandatory requirements of Section 7 of the Act of 1894 are not complied with. The writ petition was, admittedly, filed after making of the Award. It is contended that the petitioners raised 11 objections. But, in strict sense of law, the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider their objections and there is no recommendation in the eye of law by the Dy. Collector regarding his view and opinion on the objections raised by the petitioners. There is complete arbitrariness in the decision making process. It is contended that the petitioners raised 11 objections. But, in strict sense of law, the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider their objections and there is no recommendation in the eye of law by the Dy. Collector regarding his view and opinion on the objections raised by the petitioners. There is complete arbitrariness in the decision making process. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in view of the facts of the case, the provisions of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India would operate. The Counsel further submitted that assuming that the Cabinet had taken decision in respect of compliance of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of the Act of 1894, the same was not forwarded to the Land Acquisition Officer. There are laches on the part of the State machinery and, therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings initiated and culminated in declaration of Award are required to be held has null and void. The learned Counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following case law: i) In Shri. Mandir Sita Ramji Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors., ( (1975)4 SCC 298 ), the Apex Court in para 6, has observed thus: "6. The objection in substance was that the lands in question were attached to a religious institution and were therefore, immune from being acquired under the notification. That was how the Land Acquisition Collector understood the objection. The objection raised a mixed question of law and fact and it was because of that the Collector called for a report. To say, as the Division Bench has done, that the objection raised only a question of law and, therefore, the Collector could decline to make the recommendation and leave it to the appropriate Government to decide the question is neither here nor there, inasmuch as the High Court itself has stated that the question whether the land is attached to the religious institution would depend upon resolution of questions of fact. The Division Bench said: Thus it is the manner of the utilisation of land which will determine whether it was 'attached to' or not in the present case. The Division Bench said: Thus it is the manner of the utilisation of land which will determine whether it was 'attached to' or not in the present case. In as much as nothing has been shown that the land was utilised for the purpose of the temple or the institution or that its income was so utilised, it must be held that the mere contiguity of the land to the temple of Shri Hanuman or its ownership by Shree Sita Ram Bhandar Mandir Sita Ramji at Pilani would not make the land in question 'attached to' anyone of these. If this is so, it is difficult to understand why the objection raised only a question of law, which could be left to the decision of the appropriate Government without the recommendation by the Collector. As we have said, the objection was that the lands belonged to the religious institution and would come within the purview of the exempted class of lands in the notification. In substance, this was an objection that the lands were attached to the religious institution. As the objections raised questions of fact, the Land Acquisition Collector should have enquired into them and should have made his recommendation as provided in Section 5-A. The failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to inquire into the objection after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard would show that he declined to exercise his jurisdiction under the section. As we said, the fact that the ultimate decision has to be made by the State Government did not relieve the Collector from his statutory duty to enquire into the objection and make the recommendation. We see no reason why the Division Bench should have departed from the procedure prescribed by the statute. The observance of the procedure laid down by the statute before depriving a person of his property is necessary to generate the feeling that rule of law prevails in this country. When a procedure is prescribed by the Legislature, it is not for the Court to substitute a di fferent one according to its notion of justice. When the Legislature has spoken, the judges cannot afford to be wiser." ii) In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and ors. (supra), the Apex Court in paras 7, 11 and 17 observed thus : "7. When the Legislature has spoken, the judges cannot afford to be wiser." ii) In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and ors. (supra), the Apex Court in paras 7, 11 and 17 observed thus : "7. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of its power of 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation there for must be paid. 11.1n State of Punjab and Another Vs. Gurdial Singh and others [ (1980)2 SCC 471 ], it was held: "... Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons..." This Court in Om Prakash and Another Vs. State of D.P. and others [ (1998)6 SCC 1 ] held, thus; "21. Our attention was also invited by Shri. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants to a decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh wherein Krishna Iyer', J. dealing with the question of exercise of emergency powers under Section 17 of the Act observed in para 16 of the Report that save in real urgency where public interest did not brook even the minimum time needed to give a hearing, land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Articles 14 and 19, burke an inquiry under Section 17 of the Act. Thus, according to the aforesaid decision of this Court, inquiry under Section 5-A is not merely statutory but also has a flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution though right to property has now no longer remained a fundamental right, at least observation regarding Article 14, vis-a-vis, Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act would remain apposite." 17.Even a judicial review on facts in certain situations may be unavailable. In Cholan. Roadways Ltd. Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam [ (2005)3 SCC 241 ] this Court observed: "34. ... In Cholan. Roadways Ltd. Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam [ (2005)3 SCC 241 ] this Court observed: "34. ... It is now well settled that a quasi-judicial authority must pose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at a correct finding of fact. A wrong question posed leads to a wrong answer. In this case, furthermore, the misdirection in law committed by the Industrial Tribunal was apparent insofar as it did not apply the principle of res ipsa loquitur which was relevant for the purpose of this case and, thus, failed to take into consideration a relevant factor and furthermore took into consideration an irrelevant fact not germane for determining the issue, namely, that the passengers of the bus were mandatorily required to be examined. The Industrial Tribunal further failed to apply the correct standard of proof in relation to a domestic enquiry, which is "preponderance of probability" and applied the standard of proof required for a criminal trial. A case for judicial review was, thus, clearly made out. 35. Errors of fact can also be a subject-matter of judicial review. (See E. Vs. Secy. of State of the Home Deptt.). Reference in this connection may also be made to an interesting article by Paul P. Craig. Q.C. Titled "Judicial Review. Appeal and Factual Error published in 2004 Public Law. P.788"." iii) In the case of Sukumar M. Khot and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ( 2006(4) Bom.C.R. 337 : [2006(3) ALL MR 302]), the Division Bench, Principal Seat, at Mumbai in paras 12 and 13 has held as under: "12. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners is that there was a failure on the part of the respondentState to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 5-A. 13.In order to appreciate the submission, it may be noted that under sub-section (1) of section 5-A, a person interested in any land which is notified under section 4 is entitled to object to the Acquisition of the land. The Collector is required by sub-section (2) to give the objector an opportunity of being heard. The Collector is required by sub-section (2) to give the objector an opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, sub-section (2) mandates that the Collector shall "after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, subsection (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government." (emphasis supplied). The decision of the appropriate Government on the objection is to be final." 11. In Writ Petition No.353/2009, the petitioners have approached this Court after the possession of their land was taken by the Authorities. The petitioner filed their objections to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The petitioners raised objections which are akin to the one raised by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.30/2008. One of the objections is that the subject site is in close proximity of residential international school, Churches, historical monuments, and historical sites. The petitioners stated that the acquisition proceedings, if complete, would affect the tourism industry which yields huge returns for Goa and the Country, once the garbage disposal plant is set up there. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is total non-application of mind by the Land Acquisition Officer to the objections raised by the petitioners. There are no recommendations of the Officer concerned. The Officer has merely forwarded objections by noting the objections raised by the party by concluding that he is not satisfied with the objections raised. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgment in the case of Harakchand Misirimal Solanki V s. The Collector, Collector Office, Land Acquisition Branch, Pune and ors. [2009(1) ALL MR 799] (supra), and in the case of Vyalikaval House Building Co-op. Society Vs. V. Chandrappa & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1151 : [2007 ALL SCR 1250]. 12. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State submitted that all the petitioners pat1icipated in the inquiry conducted under Section 9 before passing the Award. There is delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court and the petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. 12. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State submitted that all the petitioners pat1icipated in the inquiry conducted under Section 9 before passing the Award. There is delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court and the petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. The petitioners failed to project inherent prohibition in law in going ahead with the acquisition proceedings for public purpose. In the submission of the learned Advocate General, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.30/ 08, filed the petition before passing of the Award and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3/09 have filed the petition after passing of the Award. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.353/2009 filed the petition after the possession of the land was taken. In case of Writ Petition No.30/08, the petition was filed on 18. I .08 and possession was taken on 13.11.09. 13. The learned Advocate General submitted that the acquisition proceedings are required for setting up of a garbage disposal plant and, therefore, there is no prohibition in Jaw for the State to acquire the land at the request of the CCP beyond its Municipal territorial limits. Setting up of a plant is essential not only in view of the legal provisions, but in larger public interest as well. The Goa State Pollution Control Board has given its no objection, in principle, to go ahead with the acquisition proceedings by communication dated 2.9.05. Even the Directorate of Archives and Archeology, has granted NOC by communication dated 3.2.2006, in principle, to proceed with the acquisition proceedings. The site was also inspected, inspection reports were filed and according]y, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated. 14. On the issue of consideration of objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, raised by the petitioner, the learned Advocate General submitted that the so called objections raised by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.30/ 08 are no objections at all in the eye of law. Therefore, the Dy. Collector had no occasion to deal with the same. The objections which are to be considered shall have to be relevant ones. The learned Advocate General referred to the proceedings filed by the concerned Village Panchayat being W.P. No.15/08, raising objection to the acquisition of the land, which was dismissed for want of locus standi on 25.11.2008. Therefore, the Dy. Collector had no occasion to deal with the same. The objections which are to be considered shall have to be relevant ones. The learned Advocate General referred to the proceedings filed by the concerned Village Panchayat being W.P. No.15/08, raising objection to the acquisition of the land, which was dismissed for want of locus standi on 25.11.2008. The learned Advocate General also' referred to Writ Petition No.12/09 filed by Sunshine Educational Trust and am. raising objections to the acquisition of the said land, which petition was disposed of on 27.1.2009, subject to the statement of the learned Counsel for the CCP recorded in the said order and in view of the stand taken by State Government in that petition. 15. On the issue of compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 5-A, it was submitted by the learned Advocate General that there is substantial compliance made by the Dy. Collector. Report/recommendations submitted by the Dy. Collector were minutely read out by the learned Advocate General before us to support the submission that there is application of mind by the officer concerned and the objections raised by the parties relevant to the cause have been considered. 16. While replying to the submission relating to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1894, the learned Advocate General submitted that the words "to take order" shall mean "to proceed". The learned Advocate General submitted that without entering into the issue as to whether interpretation of the provisions of Section 7 requires a fresh look by this Court, in the facts of the case, even the provisions of Section 7 were fully complied with by the respondent-State and its authorities. The learned Advocate General referred to a communication made by the Under Secretary dated 12.12.2007 addressed to the Collector, North Goa District, Panaji, Goa, wherein it was informed by the State that the Cabinet, in the meeting held on 15.11.2007, under the Chairmanship of the Hon 'ble Chief Minister, in the Secretariat, decided under Table Item No.4 to proceed with the process of land acquisition for landfill site of Bainguinim for CCP, Panaji. By the said communication, the Collector was requested to take appropriate action in the matter and submit report to the office for perusal of General Administration Department. The communication was directed to be treated as Most Urgent. By the said communication, the Collector was requested to take appropriate action in the matter and submit report to the office for perusal of General Administration Department. The communication was directed to be treated as Most Urgent. By an endorsement dated 13.12.07, the Collector requested the LAO (Dy. Collector) to speak to him urgently. Copy of the said communication was marked to the LAO (Dy. Collector) with endorsement to treat it as urgent. The Dy. Collector received the same on 14.12.2007. The learned Advocate General submitted that thereafter, notices under Sections 9 and 10 were reissued on 17.12.07. 17. The learned Advocate General submitted that both the objections relating to non-compliance of Sections 5-A and 7 of the Act of 1894 have been answered on merits by the State. Reference was made to the provisions of MSW Rules 2000, Goa Daman and Diu Rules, 1972 and the Goa Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 1996. By placing reliance on the provisions of these Rules, the learned Advocate General submitted that appropriate initial no objections have been obtained by the Sate from competent authorities, such as Goa State Pollution Control Board and others, before initiating the land acquisition proceedings. Further feasibility report or sanction to establish the plant, which would be modern and equipped with latest technology, would be obtained from the concerned authorities, at an appropriate stage. 18. In the submission of the learned Advocate General, there cannot be any dispute that establishment of garbage disposal plant is an essential requirement of today. It is absolutely necessary in public interest. The plant would benefit the general public in maintaining hygiene conditions and would prevent the health hazards of the residents of the concerned area. It is a mandatory requirement of law and the State and its agency would be failing in its duties if the establishment of the plant is delayed. In the submission of the learned Advocate General, the places of historical, cultural or religious importance, monuments, churches, etc., are at a far away distance from the proposed site. Requirement of distance, as contemplated in law, from schools, religious places, sites of historical and cultural importance are maintained. There is absolutely no violation of such rules. 19. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the following Judgments in support of his contentions. A) In Sesa Goa Ltd. V s. The State of Goa and ors. Requirement of distance, as contemplated in law, from schools, religious places, sites of historical and cultural importance are maintained. There is absolutely no violation of such rules. 19. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the following Judgments in support of his contentions. A) In Sesa Goa Ltd. V s. The State of Goa and ors. (1989(2) Goa Law Times 27) this Court, in para 12, has held thus: "12. The argument that the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5-A of the Act does not disclose application of mind is more summarily dealt with. We have, with the assistance of the learned Advocate and learned Advocate General, gone through the report and, in our opinion, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has considered several relevant questions which were raised before him. He has also in our opinion, considered adequately such other questions as the availability and suitability of other lands for the stated public purpose and has come to the conclusion that the property now proposed to be acquired eminently suits the purpose for which it is being acquired and no other property is either available or is suitable. This report of the Land Acquisition Officer has been accepted and acted upon by the State Government. It is not for this Court under Article 226 of the constitution to sit as a Court of appeal on the recommendations which have been made, if they have been made in accordance with the law, by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5-A of the Act. We are not persuaded to hold that the Land Acquisition Officer has not applied his mind to all the material before him. We must remember that the Report under Section 5-A of the Act is not in the nature of a judgment to be delivered by a court of law by framing issues and answering each of them. If there is in the Report the consideration of all the relevant points which have been urged before the Land Acquisition Officer that, in our opinion, would be sufficient compliance with the requirements under Section 5-A of the Act." B) In M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608 , the Apex Court, in para 21 has held as under: "21. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608 , the Apex Court, in para 21 has held as under: "21. This Court has repeatedly held that writ petition challenging the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches if challenge is not made within a reasonable time. This Court has said that the petitioner cannot sit on the fence and allow the State to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notifications on the grounds which were available to him at the time when these were published as otherwise it would be putting premium on dilatory tactics. Writ Petition (SCA 5149/89) is thus barred by laches as well." C) Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar and another V s. Shah Hyder Beig and ors., AIR 2000 SC 671 : [2000(2) ALL MR 438 (S.C.)]. D) In Tej Kaur and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors. ( AIR 2003 SC 2414 ). E) In Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and ors. etc. ( AIR 2000 SC 3737 : [1999(4) ALL MR 628 (S.C.)]), the Apex Court in paras 54, 55 and 56 observed thus: "54. Now objections under Section 5A, if filed, can relate to the contention. that (i) the purpose for which land is being acquired is not a public purpose (ii) that even if the purpose is a public purpose, the land •of the objector is not necessary, in the sense that the public purpose could be served by other land already proposed or some other land to which the objector may refer or (iii) that in any event, even if this land is necessary for the public purpose, the special fact-situation in which the objector is placed, it is a fit case for omitting his land from the acquisition. Objection (ii) is personal to the land and objection (iii) is personal to the objector. 55. Now in the (ii) and (iii) type of objections, there is a personal element which has to be pleaded in the Section 5-A inquiry and if objections have not been filed, the notification must be conclusive proof that the said person had 'waived' all objections which were personal and which he could have raised. However, so far as objection . Now in the (ii) and (iii) type of objections, there is a personal element which has to be pleaded in the Section 5-A inquiry and if objections have not been filed, the notification must be conclusive proof that the said person had 'waived' all objections which were personal and which he could have raised. However, so far as objection . (i) is concerned, even in case objections are not filed, the affected party can challenge in Court that the purpose was not a public purpose. 56. Learned Solicitor General Sri Salve rightly argued that in respect of each land owner whose land is acquired the Section 4 notification if it is sought to be avoided on personal grounds as stated in (ii) and (iii) above, it is necessary that objection be filed to avoid a voidable notification. Otherwise, the notification which is not avoided on any personal grounds, remains operative and personal objections are deemed to be waived." F) In M/s. Dada Fire Works Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005(3) ALL MR 627); and G) In Pramod K. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Custom Export Promotion S.I.I.B. (Export) & anr., 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1335. 20. Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent CCP submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the acquisition proceedings are complete and the land vests in the Corporation. The transfer of land is, thus, complete. It is a huge tract of land. Many of the land owners have participated in the land acquisition proceedings, withdrawn amounts and have preferred land acquisition references. Except these petitioners, no other land owner has filed any petition in this Court, instead they have filed references. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners have also filed references. 21. Learned Counsel appearing for the Goa State Pollution Control Board submitted that authorization for acquisition of land was issued by the Board. Approval to the garbage disposal plant would be considered at an appropriate stage. 22. At this stage, it is worthwhile to reproduce provisions of Sections 5-A and 7 of the Act of 1894. 21. Learned Counsel appearing for the Goa State Pollution Control Board submitted that authorization for acquisition of land was issued by the Board. Approval to the garbage disposal plant would be considered at an appropriate stage. 22. At this stage, it is worthwhile to reproduce provisions of Sections 5-A and 7 of the Act of 1894. Sections 5-A reads thus: "5-A. Hearing of objections.- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, [within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard [in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf] or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, [either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, subsection (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government). The decision of the [appropriate Government] on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act]." Section 7 reads thus : "After declaration. Collector to take order for acquisition.- Whenever any land shall have been so declared to be needed for a public purpose or for a company, the [appropriate Government] or some' officer authorised by the [appropriate Government] in this behalf, shall direct the Collector to take order for the acquisition of the land." 23. We have considered the relevant record placed before us, the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and the case laws cited. We have considered the relevant record placed before us, the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and the case laws cited. As regards first issue relating to non-consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, we find that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.30/08, has filed objections by way of a letter dated 23.6.06, wherein it is stated that the acquisition proceedings are hit by the Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. All the objections enumerated under the grounds raised in the petition are not reflected in the so called objections raised by the petitioners. Therefore, the learned Advocate General's contention that the objections raised by the petitioners are no objections at all in the eye of law deserving consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer bears substance. While at the same time even if it is considered that the petitioners are not debarred from approaching this Court at an appropriate stage in raising the questions which go to the root of the matter, even then we find that the consideration that the issue raised by co-petitioners were dealt with by the Dy. Collector and L.A.O. In principle, the requirement for compliance of Section 5-A are mandatory in nature. The objection cannot be dealt with casually. It depends on the facts of each case as to in what manner objections are raised and dealt with by the L.A.O. We have gone through the report of the Dy. Collector which is submitted to the Under Secretary on 1.11.06. After considering the objections raised by the parties, issues raised by the copetitioners, the Dy. Collector observed in the report that all the objections were forwarded to the Commissioner of the Corporation, and the comments were obtained. It was noticed by the Dy. Col1ector that the Goa State Pollution Control Board issued several notices to the Corporation to have a waste disposal site and a disposal and treatment facility for the garbage generated within the jurisdiction of the CCP. The Dy. Collector also noted that the Supreme Court was monitoring the implementation of MSW Rules, 2000 and any delay in making the disposal and treatment facility would amount to contempt of the Supreme Court directives. 24. As regards the issue of nuisance raised by the parties, the Dy. The Dy. Collector also noted that the Supreme Court was monitoring the implementation of MSW Rules, 2000 and any delay in making the disposal and treatment facility would amount to contempt of the Supreme Court directives. 24. As regards the issue of nuisance raised by the parties, the Dy. Collector considered the comments of the Commissioner of the CCP who assured that the garbage treatment plant would be surrounded by physical as well as visual barriers. The plant would be constructed strictly within the parameters of the relevant rules. The site was inspected by the Dy. Collector on 18.10.2006 along with the Surveyor and another Official. The relevant report and the plan was perused. It was noticed by the Dy. Col1ector that there were two big quarries and the remaining area was plain, hilly land in nature. He has also noticed that a high tension line was passing through and on the southern side of the boundary of the proposed land, there is an ancient historical laterite stone fort wall belonging to Kadamba Kingdom. A religious organisation has purchased some land at a distance of about 200 metres from the proposed acquisition and an intefl1ational school known as "Sunshine School" was being constructed in the close proximate of the proposed site. The Dy. Collector also noticed that residential colonies were coming up near the site and most of the plots were purchased by individual parties. It was noted by the Dy. Collector that the area under acquisition lies about 1.5 kms. from the Churches of Old Goa, St. Augustine Tower and other historical monuments, and old heritage site of Old Goa. After observing this, the Dy. Collector concludes that the land under acquisition at Baigunim is suitable for the purpose for which it is being acquired. 25. Considering the facts of the case, we are convinced that there is no lack of application of mind by the Dy. Collector. There is reasonable application of mind reflected from the report/recommendations submitted by the Dy. Collector. In the end, the Dy. Collector stated that he was enclosing a draft notification under Section 6 along with copies of survey report/survey plan and inspection report for taking further necessary action in the matter. The observations of the Dy. Collector. There is reasonable application of mind reflected from the report/recommendations submitted by the Dy. Collector. In the end, the Dy. Collector stated that he was enclosing a draft notification under Section 6 along with copies of survey report/survey plan and inspection report for taking further necessary action in the matter. The observations of the Dy. Collector would further demonstrate that he was satisfied and convinced that there lies a public purpose and the site selected for the purpose of execution of the scheme is suitable one. 26. In respect of the ground raised by the petitioners regarding non-compliance of section 7 of the Act of 1894, we find that in the Cabinet Meeting held on 15.11.2007, a decision was taken to proceed with the process of land acquisition for the landfill site of Baiguinim for the CCP. The decision was communicated to the Collector, North Goa, Panaji who, in turn, communicated the same to the Land Acquisition Officer. From the record, we find that earlier notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 were kept on hold and after receipt of the decision of the Cabinet, as communicated by the Under Secretary, fresh notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1894 were issued. The parties participated in the inquiry and thereafter the A ward under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was passed. We find that there is substantial compliance in respect of provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1894. The contention raised by the petitioners, in that behalf, therefore, stands rejected. 27. We do find that the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3/09 have filed the writ petition after passing of the Award. It is informed to the Court that the petitioners have even filed an application for reference which proceedings are pending. There is substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that all these petitions suffer from delay and laches. The petitioner, in Writ Petition No.30/08, according to his Counsel, has not withdrawn the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner had to file a reference as, otherwise, the period of limitation would have expired. The petitioner, in Writ Petition No.30/08, according to his Counsel, has not withdrawn the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner had to file a reference as, otherwise, the period of limitation would have expired. Though we find that the submission of the petitioner on the ground of delay in approaching this Court is not fully convincing, however, taking a broader view of the matter, we have considered the matter on merits, on the issues raised by them before this Court. We do not find force in the submission of the Counsel that the Award itself is barred by limitation. 28. We find that the submissions advanced in respect of the issues raised by the learned Advocate General and the CCP 'are convincing enough to reject the contentions and the objections raised by the petitioners. The said site is acquired for public purpose. The CCP has right and authority to initiate such acquisition proceedings in public interest. It is absolutely essential to have a garbage disposal plant for the city. The respondents have assured that setting up of the plant would be undertaken by taking help of latest scientific methods and would be in adherence to the provisions of law. 29. We, therefore, find no merit in these petitions. The petitions, accordingly, stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule discharged. Petitions dismissed.