Judgment : F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside by a writ of certiorari the corrigendum no. 22/27/2003-RD dated 23.02.2005. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Petitioners with the consent of their mother in law, purchased part of A2 and no. A3 of the property bearing survey no. 7/2, wherein a dwelling house was located from Shri Nachinolkar and his wife. After the said purchase, an application came to be filed before the local Panchayat for a licence of construction of a compound wall around the said two parts bearing no. A2 and A3 purchased by the Petitioners. In the meanwhile, on 24.04.2003, the Respondent no. 1 issued a Notification dated 24.04.2003 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), showing their intention to acquire properties as mentioned in the Schedule thereto for the public purpose, for widening of road from the house of Silvestre D' Souza, Petitioner no. 1 herein, to the house of Victoria Dias, who is residing adjacent to the house of the Petitioners and from the Garage of Mr. Nachinolkar, to summer-villa at Santa Barbora, Bondir. Upon verification of the plan of the said acquisition, the Petitioners learnt that strips of land on either side of the space of three metres width reserved by the landlords as a private access for the occupants of plot no. 7 lying on the East of parts A2 and A3 purchased by the Petitioners, were sought to be acquired pursuant to the said Notification for the purpose of widening of the private access. Besides, a small stretch of the entire road at Bondir was sought to be widened and that too only on one side of the public road. 4. Objections were raised by the Petitioners as well as the other residents of the locality to the proposed acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted an inquiry and ultimately submitted a report under Section 5A of the said Act dated 11.02.2004. 4. Objections were raised by the Petitioners as well as the other residents of the locality to the proposed acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted an inquiry and ultimately submitted a report under Section 5A of the said Act dated 11.02.2004. It would be relevant to note that in the said report, the Land Acquisition Officer had observed thus: “However, the objectors have stated that there is no existing road between the house of Silvester D' Souza to Victoria Dias and the widening of non existing road should not be considered as public purpose. In this regard, the objectors have also pointed out to the corrigendum issued by Government thereby adding the purpose as “Construction of drainage”. In this context, it is seen that there is no existing road from the house of Silvester D' Souza to the house of Victoria Dias and if this proposed road is constructed, it is going to benefit 4 to 5 families. On the surrounding which is contrary to the condition laid down in Govt. Circular No. 33/17/2001-RD(LA) dt. 07.04.2003. The total area of the said branch road from the house of Silvester D' Souza to the house of Victoria Dias is 80 sq. mts. which is evidence from the letter dt. 05.02.2004 from Ex. Exg. II of the Acquiring Department. A copy of the said letter is enclosed in duplicate. As such there appears to be substance in the objection. However, the acquiring Department in their letter dt. 8.10.2003 (copies enclosed) has stated that the widening of road and construction of drainage from the house of Silvester D' Souza to Victoria Dias it necessary since the rain water gets accumulated during rainy season and the area gets flooded and therefore the proposal to construct the drainage to allow the flooded water was necessary. In the light of above, it may be decided whether to include this 80 sq. mtrs of area for final acquisition.” It is also to be mentioned that in the original Notification under Section 6 of the said Act, an area of 80 square metres of the property belonging to the Petitioners came to be deleted. Nevertheless, in view of the corrigendum which has been impugned in the present Petition, the said area of 80 square metres was thereafter included. Nevertheless, in view of the corrigendum which has been impugned in the present Petition, the said area of 80 square metres was thereafter included. Being aggrieved by the subsequent corrigendum of the Notification under Section 6 of the said Act, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition, inter alia, seeking to quash and set aside the said Notification. 5. The Respondents filed their reply to the above Petition, inter alia, stating that the said 80 square metres was for the purpose of drainage system and further reiterating that the said portion of the property was also required for the public purpose as referred to in the notification and the corrigendum. It was further pointed out that the area of 80 square metres which was deleted was in respect of the branch road sought to be acquired pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act. 6. Mr. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has pointed out that the public purpose referred to by the Respondents is for the widening of the road but, however, such alleged widening is only on one side of the road. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as far as the disputed area in the present proceedings is concerned, the area of 80 square metres is not at all any part of the road and, as such, the question of widening such non-existing road would not arise. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the motive of the Respondents in acquiring the land is for malafide and colorable exercise to serve the private interest of the owners of the house existing in plot no. 7. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the said portion of the property was a reserved road by the landlord and, as such, the question of acquiring land would not arise. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in the objections raised by the Petitioners under Section 5A of the said Act, a specific objection was raised with that regard which the Land Acquisition Officer while submitting his report had upheld the objections. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer had in fact called upon the Government to taken a decision on the face of acceptance of the objections raised by the Petitioners. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there are no reasons which have been shown by the Respondent no. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer had in fact called upon the Government to taken a decision on the face of acceptance of the objections raised by the Petitioners. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there are no reasons which have been shown by the Respondent no. 1 in their reply as to why the objections upheld in the report by the Land Acquisition Officer have been unsettled. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as no reasons have been shown to the notification under Section 6 of the said Act, without properly examining the report under Section 5A itself vitiates. The learned Counsel as such submits that the above Notification be quashed and set aside. In support of her submission, the learned Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2014(3) S.C.C. 203 in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 7. On the other hand, Shri E. Afonso, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents, has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Government Advocate further pointed that the Land Acquisition Officer has in fact examined the objections raised by the Petitioners and has recommended that the land has to be acquired. The learned Government Advocate has thereafter taken us through the Section 5A report and pointed out that all the objections raised by the Petitioners have been duly examined by the Land Acquisition Officer and, as such, the question of examining the correctness of such findings in the present Petition would not arise. Learned Government Advocate has pointed out that the Government has accepted the report under Section 5-A of the said Act and issued a Notification under Section 6 of the said Act. Learned Government Advocate further pointed out that the very fact that the Government has accepted the report itself suggests that the observations of the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the objections raised by the Petitioners have been overruled. Learned Government Advocate has pointed out that the land is being acquired for the purpose of widening of the road and drainage and, as such, it cannot be disputed that such purpose is a public purpose. Learned Government Advocate has disputed the contention of Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, to the effect that the acquisition is a colourable exercise of powers. Learned Government Advocate has disputed the contention of Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, to the effect that the acquisition is a colourable exercise of powers. The learned Government Advocate as such submits that the Petition be rejected. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. We have also gone through the records. As pointed out herein above while submitting a report under Section 5A of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer in fact accepted the objections raised by the Petitioners to the proposed acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer in fact pointed out that land admeasuring 80 square metres which is sought to be acquired is not part of the road and in fact it appears that the same is a drain. The question of accepting that a drain is a road is totally misplaced. In such circumstances though it cannot be disputed that the appropriate Government has a right to overrule the findings of the Land Acquisition Officer in the report under Section 5A of the said Act, nevertheless, such stand can be taken only by giving reasons as to why the report of the Land Acquisition Officer is not accepted. In the present case, on perusal of the reply filed by the Respondents no reasons have been disclosed as to why the observations of the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the objections raised by the Petitioners have been overruled. Thus, the material on record does not disclose any application of mind to such observations of the Land Acquisition Officer to the objections raised by the Petitioners. Even when an opportunity was given to the learned Government Advocate to ascertain as to whether there was any decision with that regard, we find that no records were produced to justify the said aspect. In such circumstances, we have no other alternative but to hold that the Government had issued the Notification under Section 6 of the said Act without examining the observations of the Land Acquisition Officer in the report under Section 5A of the said Act accepting the objections of the Petitioners to the proposed acquisition. In this context, the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2014 AIR SCW 986 in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. has observed at paras 9 and 10 thus: “9. In this context, the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2014 AIR SCW 986 in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. has observed at paras 9 and 10 thus: “9. We are inclined to observe that the High Court has erred in dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant as the same is contrary to the principle laid down by this Court in the following cases: In Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2012) 2 SCC 25), it has been held as under: 14. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition by pointing out to the authority concerned, inter alia, that the important ingredient, namely, "public purpose" is absent in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. The LA Act being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed. 15. Hearing contemplated Under Section 5A(2) is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and make a report. The report of the Collector referred to in this provision is not an empty formality because it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the Collector's recommendations and the record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections. It is pertinent to note that declaration Under Section 6 has to be made only after the appropriate Government is satisfied on the consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector Under Section 5A(2). As said by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., the appropriate Government while issuing declaration Under Section 6 of the LA Act is required to apply its mind not only to the objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but also to the report which is submitted by the Collector upon making such further inquiry thereon as he thinks necessary and also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. 16. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the LA Act makes a declaration Under Section 6 conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. Formation of opinion by the appropriate Government as regards the public purpose must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. It is, therefore, that the hearing contemplated Under Section 5A and the report made by the Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations assume importance. It is implicit in this provision that before making declaration Under Section 6 of the LA Act, the State Government must have the benefit of a report containing recommendations of the Collector submitted Under Section 5A(2) of the LA Act. The recommendations must indicate objective application of mind. (Emphasis laid by this Court) In the case of Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2013) 4 SCC 210 , it was held as under: 30. ... Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the Collector Under Section 5A(2) that particular land is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration should be made. This necessarily implies that the State Government is required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can be made Under Section 6(1) . (Emphasis laid by this Court) Further, in the case of Women's Education Trust and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 99 , this Court has held as under: 20. What is most surprising is that the High Court did not even deal with the issue relating to application of mind by the Government to the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector Under Section 5A(2) along with his recommendations. The documents produced before the High Court and this Court do not show that the State Government had objectively applied mind to the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector and felt satisfied that the land in question deserves to be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification issued Under Section 4(1). The record also does not contain any indication as to why the State Government did not consider it proper to accept the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector. The record also does not contain any indication as to why the State Government did not consider it proper to accept the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned acquisition is ultra vires the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act. (Emphasis laid by this Court) Also, in an earlier case in Shyam Nandan Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 255 , this Court observed that compliance of Section 5A of the Act is a sine qua non for acquisition of land. This Court held that: 10....The decision of the Collector is supposedly final unless the appropriate Government chooses to interfere therein and cause affectation, suo motu or on the application of any person interested in the land. These requirements obviously lead to the positive conclusion that the proceeding before the Collector is a blend of public and individual enquiry. The person interested, or known to be interested, in the land is to be served personally of the notification, giving him the opportunity of objecting to the acquisition and awakening him to such right. That the objection is to be in writing, is indicative of the fact that the enquiry into the objection is to focus his individual cause as well as public cause.... 10. In the light of the foregoing cases, it is evident that the government has to consider the report of the Land Acquisition Collector while making declaration of acquisition of land Under Section 6 of the Act. Further, if the government is coming to a conclusion which is contrary to the report, then the government has to provide appropriate reason for the same.” 9. Taking note of the said observation of the Apex court, we find that as the Respondent no. 1 herein has not applied its mind as to why a contrary conclusion other than the one arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer in the report under Section 5A of the said Act have been arrived at, we have no other alternative but to quash and set aside the Notification under Section 6 of the said Act. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to grant the relief sought by the Petitioners to quash and set aside the Corrigendum/Notification no. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to grant the relief sought by the Petitioners to quash and set aside the Corrigendum/Notification no. 22/27/2003-RD dated 23.02.2005 published in the Official Gazette on 03.03.2005 in respect of the land of the Petitioners. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Orders as to costs.