Judgment :- U.V. BAKRE, J. 1. Heard Shri V. A. Lawande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri V. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri R. V. Kamat, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final hearing. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Notifications dated 27/04/2010 and 25/01/2011, respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act'), and the report dated 06/01/2011 under Section 5A of the Act. 4. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the property known as BOA VISTA situated in the village of Bastora, totally admeasuring 6500 square metres and surveyed under No. 93/2 of village Bastora ( said property). The petitioners purchased the said property from Shri Anilkumar Santiranjan Sen Gupta and his wife Mrs. Gurudip Singh Kaur Sen Gupta by a deed of sale executed on 24/12/2007, for the purpose of construction of residential houses for both the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they have obtained conversion Sanad dated 05/01/2010, from the Collector, in respect of the said property. 5. On 27/04/2010, respondent no. 1 issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act disclosing that the said property is likely to be needed for public purpose i.e. for development of village playground at Bastora. The respondent no.1 issued the notification under Section 6 of the Act on 25/11/2010 observing that after considering the report made under sub-section 2 of Section 5A of the Act, the land is needed for the said public purpose. 6. According to the petitioners, there is absolutely no public purpose involved in acquiring the said land. The exercise of the Government to acquire the said land is colourable and void as under the garb of public purpose, the land has been notified for acquisition without any application of mind. The report under Section 5A is illegal, ill-motivated and not in accordance with the objects of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. Respondent no.4 had sent resolution dated 28/05/2006 with a proposal to acquire land, which bears Survey No.3/1, 3/3 and 2/1, etc. for the purpose of playground at village Bastora, to the Directorate of Sports. The petitioner no. Respondent no.4 had sent resolution dated 28/05/2006 with a proposal to acquire land, which bears Survey No.3/1, 3/3 and 2/1, etc. for the purpose of playground at village Bastora, to the Directorate of Sports. The petitioner no. 1, by letter dated 13/08/2009 addressed to the Sports Secretary and another letter dated 14/08/2009 addressed to the Director of Sports informed that their land is not fit for ground and that at a distance of 5 metres from the petitioners' property, a ground is being already developed, for which an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs has been allotted by the respondent no. 2, under grant-in-aid scheme, in the property bearing survey no. 99/4, belonging to the Communidade. This is a vast land and if another playground is required, then the government can acquire further land from this survey no. 99/4. The petitioners, through their Advocate, had issued a notice dated 19/1/2009 as the respondent no. 4 had constructed drain and had demolished the compound wall in the property of the petitioners. This letter created animosity between the petitioners and the respondent no. 4. 7. This Court, by order dated 2nd May 2011, had directed the respondents to place on record the details of the playgrounds that are available in the village Bastora and to point out whether the land sought to be acquired was already used as playground and from what date. Respondent no.4 i.e. the Village Panchayat, through the affidavit filed by its secretary, stated that there were three playgrounds available in the village namely, a) A plot of land admeasuring about 1000 sq. mts. in Survey no.83 in front of Government Primary School at St. Cruz Wado, Bastora. b) A plot of land admeasuring 925 sq.mts in Survey No.130/5 in front of Government Primary School at Xell Wado. c) A plot of land admeasuring about 8400 sq.mts in Survey No.99/4 belonging to the Comunidade of Bastora in front of the Holy Cross School. The said Secretary further discloses that their records do not disclose the date from which the land under Survey No.93/2 was used as playground, but the goal posts were erected in that land after their receipt from the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs on 28/10/2007. 8. The said Secretary further discloses that their records do not disclose the date from which the land under Survey No.93/2 was used as playground, but the goal posts were erected in that land after their receipt from the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs on 28/10/2007. 8. The Director of Sports and Youth Affairs in her affidavit has stated as follows: The proposal for acquisition of this land was moved way back in the year 2004 by the Village Panchayat of Bastora. Somewhere on 26/8/2006, before purchasing the property, the petitioner had issued a notice published in the English newspaper “Navhind Times” calling for objections from any person or institutions in respect of the said property. The department vide letter dated 31/08/2006 had written to the said Advocate Shri Y. Zuzarte that the Government is in process of acquiring the said land and that any transfer of the property would result in consequential prejudice. It is false that the department is developing any ground at a distance of 5 metres from the present site for any school. The petitioners have purposely purchased the suit property, which was fully used as football ground for over 60 years and having taken risk, there is no equity in their favour. Even the notice dated 19/01/2009 has been drawn up in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Anilkumar Gupta though the petitioners are alleged to have purchased the said property vide sale deed dated 24/12/2007. The playground sought to be constructed in Survey No.99/4 is a private ground belonging to Holy Cross Convent High School and its use is not available for general public, but for the school, etc. The present play ground is being built under the scheme known as “Development of Government Village School Playground”, in the dire interest of providing the need based duly developed standard playground to the local students community to enhance their levels of performance besides making these facilities available to the local public. It is false that any acquisition has commenced or being considered in Survey Nos.3/2, 3/3 and 2/1 to 14, by the department. 9. The petitioner no. 1 has filed Affidavit-in-Rejoinder, in which, inter alia, he has denied that he had issued any notice dated 26/08/2008 in the newspaper Navhind Times calling for objections in respect of the said property. It is false that any acquisition has commenced or being considered in Survey Nos.3/2, 3/3 and 2/1 to 14, by the department. 9. The petitioner no. 1 has filed Affidavit-in-Rejoinder, in which, inter alia, he has denied that he had issued any notice dated 26/08/2008 in the newspaper Navhind Times calling for objections in respect of the said property. He has stated that the said notice does not disclose that he had issued such notice. 10. ShriV. A. Lawande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that the proceedings under Section 5A of the Act were conducted behind the back of the petitioners in violation of the principles of natural justice and without dealing with all the objections raised by them. He relied upon “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus Darius Shapur Chenai Ltd and others, [ (2005) 7 SCC 627 ]”, wherein the importance of Section 5A of the Act has been stated. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Officer has deliberately not inspected the other open spaces, which were available and suitable for the purpose of playground. He submitted that the land acquisition proposal was initially for the land surveyed under nos. 3/1, 3/3 and 2/1, but the same appears to have been given up without any reason and only for giving advantage to the owner of the said land. Shri Lawande also pointed out that the playground has already been constructed in Survey No.99/4 for which respondent no.2 has allotted an amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs under the 'grant-in- aid' scheme and that the land under survey no. 99/4 is vast and if at all one more playground is required, then additional land from the same survey no. 99/4 could have been acquired. He invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the Secretary of respondent no. 4 wherein he has disclosed about the existence of playgrounds in village Bastora and further that the records do not disclose the date from which the land was used as playground. The learned counsel argued that there are various disadvantages for acquiring the property of the petitioners as there are various houses in the vicinity and inconvenience would be caused to the residents. According to him, the respondents ought to have taken into consideration that the petitioners had purchased the property for Rs. 25,00,000/- and had spent further amount of Rs. 2,60.000/- for conversion. According to him, the respondents ought to have taken into consideration that the petitioners had purchased the property for Rs. 25,00,000/- and had spent further amount of Rs. 2,60.000/- for conversion. He has also relied upon the following judgments: (i) “IbaldoAlvito Gomes Vs. The State of Goa and another” [2010 All M R (Supp) 693]. (ii) “SavitriChandrakesh Pal Vs. State of Maharashtra and others” [(2009)4 All M R 194] 11. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3, submitted that the Village Panchayat has admitted that the proposed land under survey no. 93/2 was used as playground. He pointed out that the Panchayat had erected goal posts in that land in October 2007. He argued that the development of the land under survey no. 99/4 is for a private ground belonging to Holy Cross Convent High School and that no acquisition process has commenced or being considered in respect of survey nos. 3/2, 3 and 2/1 to 14 by the department. It is submitted that whatever objections which were raised by the petitioners have been duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Government Advocate has relied upon “Santan Fernandes and others Versus State of Goa” [2009 (1) Goa L.R. 291]. 12. We have perused the entire material on record. 13. The respondent no. 4, vide resolution no. 2(15) dated 12/7/2009, had unanimously resolved to acquire the property bearing survey no. 93/2 of village Bastora for development of playground for betterment of the village youth, since this ground is used by the villagers for many years. By this resolution, it has been decided that no development/construction work is to be allowed or undertaken in the said property bearing survey no. 93/2 and no commercial and residential activities are to be allowed. The secretary of the respondent no. 4, in his affidavit dated 7/7/2011 has stated that the records of the panchayat do not disclose the date from which the land under survey no 93/2 was used as a playground, but the goal posts were erected in the land after their receipt from the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs on 28/10/2007. It is therefore evident that the land under survey no. 93/2 was used as a playground and even goal posts were erected on or after 28/10/2007. It is therefore evident that the land under survey no. 93/2 was used as a playground and even goal posts were erected on or after 28/10/2007. The petitioners have purchased the said property by sale deed dated 24/12/2007, which is after the erection of goal posts in that land by the village panchayat. 14. The petitioners say that the same panchayat, vide resolution no. 4(3) dated 28/5/2006 had proposed the acquisition of the land bearing survey nos. 3/1, 3/3 and 2/1 for the playground at village Bastora. However, admittedly, the respondent no.2 did not propose acquisition of the said land but proposed the acquisition of the land under survey no. 93/2, and this fact was informed to the respondent no. 4 by letter dated 26/10/2010. Neither the respondent no. 4 nor the petitioners say that the land under survey nos. 3/1, 3/2 and 2/1 was used as playground at any time. 15. The petitioners further say that there is vast land under survey no. 99/4 belonging to the communidade situated about five metres away from the property of the petitioners and that there is a playground being developed in this land and an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-has been already spent for the same. The petitioners say that the respondent no. 2 has allotted a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs for the said playground in survey no. 99/4 under the grant-in-aid scheme. In this regard, the respondent no.2 has clarified that the said ground in survey no. 99/4 is a private playground belonging to Holy Cross Convent High School, and it is developed by the school under the scheme of 'grant-in-aid'. Hence this playground will not be available for the general public as the same would be for the school students only. However according to the petitioners, the area of this land under survey no. 99/4 is 1,91,000 square metres and hence if at all the villagers are keen in having another ground, additional land from this property belonging to the communidade could be acquired and that the said land is suitable for such type of activities. The respondent no. 2 has not given any clarification about the possibility of acquisition of land from the remaining property bearing survey no. 99/4. The respondent no. 2 has not given any clarification about the possibility of acquisition of land from the remaining property bearing survey no. 99/4. Even prior to the issuance and publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Act, the petitioners had, by means of lot of correspondence, informed the authorities as to how his property is not suitable for acquisition and about the availability of the land under survey no. 99/4. The respondent no. 3 i.e. the land acquisition officer in his report under section 5A of the Act has mentioned all the objections raised by the petitioners. He has stated that no proposal for acquisition of the land under survey nos. 99/4, 3/2, 3/3 and 2/1 is presently pending and therefore the question of several playgrounds being created in the village of Bastora does not arise. The respondent no 3 has explained that the idea of the Government in acquiring the present land and to convert the existing undeveloped playground into a proper standard Government village School playground is definitely in public interest and therefore this proposal of the Directorate of Sports cannot be faulted even if some other place in the village of Bastora is unofficially being utilised as a playground. The respondent no. 3 has specifically stated in this report that during the course of inspection it was seen that two goal posts were existing on the said land and that the said land was already in use as a playground. It is further stated that the locals who were present at the time of inspection informed that this land is used as a football ground since before liberation of Goa. Selection of the land for acquisition, for particular public purpose, is within the powers of the concerned authorities and the court cannot interfere with the identification and selection process. 16. In the case of “Santan Fernandes” (supra), the Division Bench of this court has held thus: “In our view, once it is held that the land in question is sought to be acquired for public purpose, and when the SLAO has given an opportunity to the petitioners for submitting their objections and subsequently submitted his report, it cannot be said that the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated in any manner. We are of the view that the selection of the land is absolutely within the realm of the authority concerned and this Court is not required to be interfered with the said selection process, unless there is an allegation of mala fide or that the acquisition of the subject land is being made in colourable exercise on the part of the acquiring body.” 17. In the case before us, the land under survey no 93/2, selected by the concerned authority, is a vacant land with no trees/structures and has been found to be used as a playground for the last several years and goal posts are existing in that land. The concerned authority has considered the availability of the other lands suggested by the petitioners. 18. Another objection is that the Land Acquisition Officer has conducted the proceedings under section 5A of the Act behind the back of the petitioners and without dealing with the objections raised by them and on the basis of some other material subsequently gathered in violation of the principles of natural justice without hearing the petitioners. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners in the case of “Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.”(supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that having regard to Article 300-A, the right to make objections under section 5-A of the Act is akin to a fundamental right. The hearing of objection must be effective and not a mere formality. There must be proper application of mind in regard to public purpose by considering relevant factors and rejecting irrelevant factors. In this regard, admittedly, a notice dated 2/7/2010, issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, was received by the petitioners, to lodge objections, if any, in writing, on or before 30/7/2010. The petitioners have also placed reliance in the case of “Mr. Ibaldo Alvito Gomes”(supra), wherein the petitioners, in the application under section 5A of the Act, had stated that while their land was agricultural land and had furnished details of agricultural activities thereon, there was portion of land located on eastern side of National highway which was more suitable for developing as play ground and that such land was close to Balwadi and Government aided schools. It was found that the report under section 5A of Act did not deal with these important aspects raised by the petitioners. It was found that the report under section 5A of Act did not deal with these important aspects raised by the petitioners. It was found that material aspect has been totally ignored in the report under section 5A of Act. In these circumstances, It was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the report under section 5A of the Act cannot be sustained. The impugned notification was set aside. In the case of “Savitri Chandrakesh Pal”(supra), this Court has held that the authorities shall not receive information or documents after the hearing is concluded and/or shall not pass speaking orders on the basis of such documents and/ or information unless such material is brought to the notice of the parties to the proceedings, following the rules of natural justice. 19. In our considered view, in the present case before us, all the aspects/objections raised by the petitioners have been dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer in the report under section 5A of the Act. Each and every objection taken by the petitioners has been mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer and he has dealt with the same and has come to the conclusion that the objections are devoid of any merit. No material which was not known to the petitioners was considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer cannot be expected to prepare the report in a manner in which a judgment is prepared by a judicial officer. It is wrong to say that the principles of natural justice were violated. The petitioners were given personal hearing. On 6/9/2010, the petitioners had appeared for hearing and had stated that they have already given their clear objections to the proposed land acquisition under survey no 93/2 and they had prayed that the acquisition be dropped. This fact has been duly mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer in the report. Checklist for land acquisition was prepared by the acquiring department i.e. the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs after personal inspection was done by the Director of Sports & Youth Affairs and the same along with survey report was sent to the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer had inspected the site on 11/11/2010. Hence there is no force in the contention that there is no compliance of section 5A of the Act or that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. 20. The Land Acquisition Officer had inspected the site on 11/11/2010. Hence there is no force in the contention that there is no compliance of section 5A of the Act or that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. 20. The acquisition is for development of a play ground for village student community of Bastora. It cannot be said that there is no public purpose involved in this acquisition. It is not known as to why the petitioners call this a colourable exercise of the powers done with malafide purpose. In our view, it is not so. 21. It may be that the petitioners have purchased the property for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/-and might have spent a further sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- for conversion. It is true that the Director of Sports & Youth Affairs in the Checklist has valued the land approximately at Rs. 3,25,000/- only. That does not take away the right of the petitioners to ask for reference under section 18 of the Act and claim appropriate compensation for the acquired land. 22. The respondent no. 2 has stated in her affidavit that on or about 26/8/2006, before purchasing the property, the petitioners had issued a public notice in the English newspaper “Navhind Times” calling for objections from any person or institutions, in respect of the said property. The respondent no. 2 has further stated on oath that the department wrote to Advocate Y. Zuzart that the Government is in process of acquiring the land and that any transfer of the property would result in consequential prejudice. The said public notice produced by the respondent pertains to the same property bearing survey no. 93/2, but the name of the client of Advocate Zuzart has not been disclosed. In the rejoinder, the petitioner no. 1 has stated that he had never issued such notice. But the petitioners have not stated that they were not aware of such notice. The petitioners purchased the same property by sale deed dated 24/12/2007. In August 2009, the petitioners admittedly knew that the said property is proposed to be acquired by the Sports Director for the purpose of a play ground. In spite of that the petitioners obtained the conversion sanad which is dated 5/01/2010. The petitioners purchased the same property by sale deed dated 24/12/2007. In August 2009, the petitioners admittedly knew that the said property is proposed to be acquired by the Sports Director for the purpose of a play ground. In spite of that the petitioners obtained the conversion sanad which is dated 5/01/2010. Though the petitioners had purchased the said property in December 2007, however, the legal notice dated 10/01/2009, in respect of the same property, has been issued to the respondent no. 4, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Anilkumar Sen Gupta, who are the vendors in the sale deed dated 24/12/2007. According to Shri Lawande, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is because the survey records were still in the name of Anilkumar. He invited our attention to the copy of the Form NO. I & XIV, in respect of the said property which is at page no. 24. However, a perusal of this Form reveals that the certified copy thereof was issued in May 2004, which is much prior to the execution of the sale deed. There is a doubt whether the petitioners have approached this Court with clean hands or not. The contention of the respondents no 1 to 4 that the petitioners had purchased the said property inspite of knowing that the same was being used as a football ground and was being acquired and having taken risk, there cannot be equity in their favour, cannot be brushed aside lightly. 23. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no substance in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.