Judgment : F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5, Shri R. Gawas, holding for Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Shri H. D. Naik, Advocate for respondent No.6. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case stated by the petitioners, are that petitioner No.1 is a Company which has an industrial establishment in the State of Goa. Petitioner No.2 is an employee and shareholder of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 is a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner no.1. It is contended that respondent No.1 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act") dated 5th February, 2007, inter alia, intending to acquire the land bearing survey Nos. 188 (part), 189 (part) and 190 (part), admeasuring 1,81,200 sq. metres for the purpose of expansion of the Sancoale Industrial Estate, Phase-V. The petitioners, thereafter, learnt that the said acquisition was being initiated by respondents No.1 and 4 to acquire the said land for respondent No.6 which is a private party and a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. Despite the objections raised by the petitioners, the report was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A of the said Act, recommending acquisition of the said land. Accordingly, the notification under Section 6 of the said Act came to be issued on 19th April, 2007. 3. Being aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioners filed the above petition, challenging the notification issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the said Act on different grounds. 4. The respondents filed their reply, disputing the contentions raised by the petitioners in the above petition. It is their case, inter alia, that the acquisition was for a public purpose. It may also be mentioned here that after filing of the above petition, the petitioners also filed an application for amendment, incorporating some relevant aspects which later on came to their knowledge. The petitioners, inter alia, submitted that the acquisition was essentially for the private purpose of respondent No.6. To substantiate the said allegation, the petitioners have also produced some documentary evidence. The said contentions were also disputed by the respondents. 5. Mr. The petitioners, inter alia, submitted that the acquisition was essentially for the private purpose of respondent No.6. To substantiate the said allegation, the petitioners have also produced some documentary evidence. The said contentions were also disputed by the respondents. 5. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken us through the objections raised by the petitioners and pointed out that there were specific averments therein opposing the acquisition on the ground that an application for starting a SEZ by the petitioners themselves was pending before the State Government. It was also pointed out that the acquisition was malafide as the land was not required for any public purpose. It was also pointed out that the land which was proposed to be acquired, was close to the Birla Institute of Technology and in case the land is acquired, it would affect the functioning of the said establishments. The petitioners also brought to the notice of the concerned Land Acquisition Officer that there were alternate sites which were available in the locality which would suit the alleged public purpose. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the report under Section 5A of the said Act and pointed out that all the objections raised by the petitioners have not been examined by the Land Acquisition Officer whilst submitting such a report. The learned Counsel has thereafter pointed out that as the objections raised by the petitioners have not been examined by the Land Acquisition Officer whilst submitting the report under Section 5A of the said Act, itself vitiates the said report and the notification under Section 6 of the said Act also stands vitiated. The leaned Counsel further points out that it is now well settled by the Apex Court that the objections raised by the landholder have to be objectively examined by the LAO. Thereafter, the learned Counsel has agains taken us through the report and showed that there are no reasons given by the LAO as to why the objections raised by the petitioners cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel, as such, points out that the notifications issued by the State Government, as also the report of the LAO under Section 5-A of the said Act, be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel, as such, points out that the notifications issued by the State Government, as also the report of the LAO under Section 5-A of the said Act, be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel has taken us through the documentary evidence to show that the acquisition was in fact for a private establishment, namely respondent No.6 herein. 6. On the other hand, Shri Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5 has supported the notifications. The learned Government Advocate has pointed out that all the formalities under the provisions of the said Act have been duly complied with and the LAO has submitted his report under Section 5A of the said Act and consequently, the contention that the notification under Section 6 stands vitiated is totally misplaced. The learned Government Advocate points out that it is always open for the State Government to acquire land for public purpose and as such, the question of this Court taking a view that the land is not for public purpose, would not arise. The learned Government Advocate has thereafter taken us through the report under Section 5A and pointed out that the LAO has duly examined the objections raised by the petitioners whilst submitting the report. 7. Shri R. Gawas, learned Counsel holding for Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 has pointed out that the Industrial Development Corporation has already taken a resolution not to acquire the disputed land. The learned Counsel further points out that a communication to that effect is already sent to the State Government for its consideration. 8. Shri H. D. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 has also pointed out that now respondent No.6 has no claim over the disputed land which was subject-matter of the present proceedings. 9. We have examined the contentions of the learned Counsel and we have also gone through the record. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2012 (6) Bom. C.R. 844, in the case of Estefania Dias e Pereira and anr. vs. State of Goa and others, in which one of us (F.M.Reis, J.) was a party, has observed at paras 13 and 14 thus: “13. If the Collector was merely required to note or state the objections, and the response thereto the provisions of section 5-A would have been entirely different. vs. State of Goa and others, in which one of us (F.M.Reis, J.) was a party, has observed at paras 13 and 14 thus: “13. If the Collector was merely required to note or state the objections, and the response thereto the provisions of section 5-A would have been entirely different. In that event, section 5-A would merely have required the Collector to forward a report containing the objections and the responses thereto. In that event, the words containing his recommendations on the objections would not have been there for in any event he is to forward to the Government the record of the proceedings held by him. This record would contain the objections and the responses in any event. It is axiomatic, therefore, that the words containing his recommendations on the objections mandate reasons for the Collectors recommendations on the objections. 14. A report under section 5-A is an important step in the acquisition proceedings. It affects the rights of the parties substantially. We do not suggest that the report under section 5-A must be detailed or read like a judgment. It must however indicate that the objections have been considered. Merely noting the objections does not constitute a consideration of the same. Mere conclusion do not, at least in most cases, indicate that the objections and the response thereto, if any, of the authorities were considered by the Collector. The report must indicate why the objection or the response thereto as the case may be, is accepted by the Collector.” The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in (2013) 8 SCC 99 , in the case of Women's Education Trust and another vs. State of Haryana and others, has observed in paras 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 6, thus: “5.4. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the objector and make recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections filed by the interested persons. 5.5. In other words, the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections filed by the interested persons. 5.5. The Land Acquisition Collector is required to submit his report and the recommendations to the State Government along with the record of proceedings to enable the latter to take final call on the desirability, propriety and justification for the acquisition of the particular parcel(s) of land. 5.6. The declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act can be issued only if the appropriate Government, on an objective application of mind to the objections filed by the interested persons including the landowners and the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, is satisfied that the land is needed for the particular purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. 6. It is unfortunate that despite repeated judicial pronouncements, the executive authorities entrusted with the task of acquiring private land for any specified public purposes have time and again exhibited total lack of seriousness in the performance of their duties under the statute. Often they do not comply with the mandate of Section 5-A of the Act, which is sine qua non for making a valid declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. This batch of appeals is illustrative of the malady that has afflicted the State authorities who are keen to acquire private lands in the name of planned development of various urban areas, but do not bother to comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice.” 10. Considering the observations of the Apex Court, as well as of the Division Bench of this Court, the LAO has not examined the objections raised by the petitioners in respect of the land intended to be acquired, in accordance with law. 11. On going through the said observations, it is now well settled that when the LAO is submitting his report under Section 5A of the said Act, all the objections raised by the land owners have to be objectively considered. The Rules framed by the State Government with regard to an inquiry under Section 5A of the said Act also contemplate that it is open to the land owners to suggest any alternative site. 12. The Rules framed by the State Government with regard to an inquiry under Section 5A of the said Act also contemplate that it is open to the land owners to suggest any alternative site. 12. On perusal of the objections raised by the petitioners to the notification under Section 4 of the said Act, we find that the petitioners have raised specific objections with regard to the acquisition, essentially on the ground that an application for putting up SEZ by the petitioners themselves in the properties was already under consideration before the State Government. The petitioners also pointed out the steps taken by the petitioner to incur substantial expenditure on that count. The petitioners have also raised an objection due to the existence of an educational institution in the vicinity of the acquired land which would gravely affect the working of such institution. The petitioners had also suggested some alternative site for the proposed acquisition. Apart from that, the petitioners have also brought on record during the pendency of the petition that the acquisition was in fact for respondent No.6 and, as such, according to them, there was no public purpose involved in such an acquisition. 13. On going through the report under Section 5A of the said Act, submitted vide letter dated 17th April, 2007 to the Collector, we find that there is no consideration at all of the said objections raised by the petitioners. On perusal of the said report, we find that apart from holding a site inspection to find out the nature of the land and the existence of the trees, there is no application of mind at all by the LAO while submitting the said report. In such circumstances, taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Judgments, we find that the report under Section 5A of the said Act does not meet the requirements enunciated by the Apex Court. Having failed to comply with such an exercise, by itself vitiates the report under Section 5A of the said Act submitted by the LAO and the consequent notification under Section 6 of the said Act. On this count alone, the impugned report under Section 5A and the consequent notification under Section 6 of the said Act deserve to be quashed and set aside. 14. On this count alone, the impugned report under Section 5A and the consequent notification under Section 6 of the said Act deserve to be quashed and set aside. 14. Apart from that, it is to be noted that there is material on record produced by the petitioners which suggest that, in fact, the land was acquired for respondent No.6. Respondent No.4 has also brought on record a letter addressed to the State Government, disclosing them the intention not to pursue with the proposed acquisition. Along with the letter, a copy of the resolution passed by the respondent no.4 to that effect has also been attached which, inter alia, states that respondent No.4 does not intend to acquire the said land. In fact, it has proposed to denotify the said acquisition. Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate has pointed out that a decision on that aspect is pending before the State Government. 15. Be that as it may, considering that the notification under Section 6 of the said Act cannot be sustained, we find it appropriate to quash and set aside the said report under Section 5A and the consequent notification under Section 6 of the said Act for the aforesaid reasons. The State Government is at liberty to take an appropriate decision if they so desire with regard to the communication of the respondent No.4 in accordance with law. 16. In view of the above, the report under Section 5A dated 5th February, 2007 and the consequent notification under section 6 of the said Act, qua the land of the petitioners, are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.