JUDGMENT F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 4, Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 and Shri Raghunandan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 6. 2. The above Petition takes exception to the acquisition initiated by the Respondent-Government to acquire a portion of the property surveyed under no. 169/10 admeasuring 201 square metres situated at Betalbatim Village, to rehabilitate the Respondent no. 4 in view of his displacement of a portion of a property acquired for the construction of a road by a Notification dated 16.03.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioners claim to be a share holder of the Communidade, Respondent no.3 herein, and has filed the present Petition to protect the interest of the Communidade on the ground that the Respondent no. 4 had illegally encroached into a portion of a property belonging to the Communidade, Respondent no. 3, surveyed under no. 1/2 of Betalbatim Village. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent no. 4 is illegally occupying the said portion of the property and despite of the fact that an attempt by the Respondent no. 4 to legalise such encroachment did not bear any fruits in terms of the Code of Communidade, the Respondent nos. 1 to 7 initiated proceedings for acquisition of an alternate land to rehabilitate the Respondent no. 4 on account of the construction on the road. It is further the case of the Petitioners that despite of a Resolution passed by the General Body of the Communidade to legalise the encroachment, the Government refused to grant consent with that regard. Thereafter, it appears that Respondent no. 4 filed a Civil Suit before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao, and obtained a Decree against the Respondent no. 3-Communidade, inter alia, agreeing to purchase the area encroached on payment of a sum of Rs.48,000/-. In the meanwhile, the Petitioners filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition no. 9 of 2002, inter alia, seeking a direction to the Communidade to remove the encroachment in the property. 3-Communidade, inter alia, agreeing to purchase the area encroached on payment of a sum of Rs.48,000/-. In the meanwhile, the Petitioners filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition no. 9 of 2002, inter alia, seeking a direction to the Communidade to remove the encroachment in the property. The Petition came to be disposed of by an Order dated 07.10.2002, inter alia, observing that a Civil Suit was already filed with regard to the removal of the said encroachment by the Administrator being Civil Suit no. 135/2002, and, as such, there was no reason to entertain such Petition as the Petitioners would be benefited in case the Civil Suits were disposed of. Thereafter, as the said Civil Suit no. 135/2002 was already withdrawn, the Respondent no. 4 continued to occupy the area encroached in the said property. It is further the case of the Petitioners that despite of all these undisputed facts on record, the Government without any justification initiated proceedings to acquire a portion of the property belonging to the Communidade pursuant to a Notification dated 14.06.2006, to acquire the said portion of 201 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 169/10. According to the Petitioners, the said act on the part of the State Government is unjustifiable considering that the purpose is not a public purpose, and, as such, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking to quash the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the said portion of the property. 5. It is the contention of the Respondent no. 3-Communidade, that they have not opposed the acquisition as, according to them, the General Body of the Communidade had already authorised the regularisation of the encroachment and further the Communidade had already received a sum of Rs.48,000/- to legalise the occupation of the encroached land. 6. Shri J. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, in support of the Petition, has pointed out that the Government has acted in a malafide manner by proposing to acquire the said portion of the property despite of the fact that the Government itself had already rejected the proposal of the Communidade to legalise such encroachment. It is further his case that in order to rehabilitate one displaced person, the acquisition cannot be said to be a Public Purpose. It is further his case that in order to rehabilitate one displaced person, the acquisition cannot be said to be a Public Purpose. Learned Counsel further pointed out that apparently it is only a private purpose of Respondent no. 4, who has persuaded the Government to issue the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Respondent no. 2 in his reply has even gone to the extent of stating that the amount to be paid for the acquisition would be borne by the Respondent no. 4. Learned Counsel as such pointed out that this itself suggests that the whole exercise on the part of the State Government and the Respondent no. 4, is only to act in colorable exercise of powers to initiate proceedings which are not at all tenable. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Consent Decree obtained from the Civil Court is null and void as, according to him, any settlement by the Communidade has to be approved by the Administrative Tribunal. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as no such consent has been obtained, the Consent Decree itself is non est and, as such, no right can acrue to the Respondent no. 4 on the basis of such Decree. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the definition of Public Purpose and pointed out that Public Purpose envisaged therein cannot include a right of a private person such as Respondent no. 4, who is an encroacher of the land of the Respondent no. 3. Learned Counsel as such submits that as the action on the part of the State Government to acquire the land stands vitiated as the purpose, is not a Public Purpose, the Notification under Section 4 as well as under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Shri S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 4, has pointed out that the Respondent no. 4 is admittedly occupying the disputed land surveyed under no. 1/2 which is acquired for the construction of a road as on the date of Section 4 Notification. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Respondent no. 7. Shri S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 4, has pointed out that the Respondent no. 4 is admittedly occupying the disputed land surveyed under no. 1/2 which is acquired for the construction of a road as on the date of Section 4 Notification. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Respondent no. 4 is occupant of such land and, as such, irrespective of his status, he is an interested person within the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that being an interested person, he has got an interest in the compensation to be awarded and in such capacity, there is no bar under the Land Acquisition Act for the Government to have an arrangement with the Respondent no. 4 to get some alternate land in lieu of the compensation to be awarded. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 4 is an encroacher in the land cannot be accepted, as according to him, the Communidade had already legalised the occupation of the Respondent no. 4 and, as such, he is duly authorised to occupy such land. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the regularisation of the encroachment was effected way back in the year 1986 and in case the Petitioners had the interest of the Communidade to be protected, they could have filed proceedings for his eviction for all these years which itself suggests that the Petition itself is motivated and cannot be entertained by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken us through the reply filed by Respondent no. 4 to point out that there was enmity between the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 4 with regard to the occupation of the land which was encroached by the Communidade. 8. Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 3, has submitted that the Communidade in fact was enriched by receiving a sum of Rs.48,000/-besides the Communidade is also entitled to the compensation awarded in respect of the land acquired under survey no. 1/1 in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 3, has submitted that the Communidade in fact was enriched by receiving a sum of Rs.48,000/-besides the Communidade is also entitled to the compensation awarded in respect of the land acquired under survey no. 1/1 in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Counsel further pointed out that once a General Body had authorised the Managing Committee to legalise the encroachment in a particular manner, it is not open to the Petitioners to challenge such action in the present Petition. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in case the Petitioners had any grievance with regard to the Resolution passed, they had an alternate remedy to challenge such Resolution in terms of the Code of Communidade. Learned Counsel has taken us through the relevant provisions of Code of Communidade and pointed out that the exercise carried out by the Respondent no. 3, is in accordance with the said Code and, as such, the contention of the Petitioners that they are protecting the interest of the Communidade are pure surmises without any substance. 9. Shri L. Raghunandan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 6, has submitted that according to the Panchayat, the land which is subject matter of the present acquisition surveyed under no. 169/10, is in fact being used for public purpose wherein the children from the locality are using it as a playground. Learned Counsel further pointed out that some recreation activities are being carried out in the said portion and, according to him, the acquisition by the Government of such land is not at all justified. 10. Shri Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8, has submitted that the Petitioners are not the persons interested in the acquisition as the owner of the land acquired is the Communidade and has not raised any objection to the acquisition. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has pointed out that there was another Writ Petition filed by the Respondent no. 4 before this Court being Writ Petition no.634/2007, wherein the acquisition of the land of the property bearing survey no. 1/2 was the subject matter of a challenge by the Respondent no. 4 wherein the Government had made a statement that the Respondent no. 4 would be duly rehabilitated. 4 before this Court being Writ Petition no.634/2007, wherein the acquisition of the land of the property bearing survey no. 1/2 was the subject matter of a challenge by the Respondent no. 4 wherein the Government had made a statement that the Respondent no. 4 would be duly rehabilitated. Learned Counsel further pointed out that initially such rehabilitation was to be in another property surveyed under 80/1, which did not materialise and, accordingly, the said Petition was disposed of by Order dated 05.10.2011, whereby the State Government was directed not to dispossess the Respondent no. 4 unless he is duly rehabilitated. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Petition has no substance and deserves to be rejected as, according to him, the State Government is very much within their rights to enter into any arrangement as also to acquire such land to rehabilitate a person who has been displaced. 11. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records with the assistance of the learned Counsel, we shall first proceed to examine whether the land acquired to accommodate a displaced person can be a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A public purpose under Section 3(f) of the Act, reads thus: 3(f) the expression 'public purpose' includes - (i) the provision of village-sites, or the extension, planned development or improvement of existing village-sites; (ii) the provision of land for town or rural planning; (iii) the provision of land for planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing further development as planned; (iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State; (v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State. (vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government by a local authority, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, or a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State. (vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority; (viii) the provision of any premises or building for locating a public office, but does not include acquisition of land for Companies. 12. On plain reading of the said provision in order to rehabilitate a person who has been displaced to implement a scheme of the Government including planned development is also a public purpose. Considering the said definition, the contention of Shri J. P. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the purpose for which the land is acquired, cannot be treated to be a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be accepted. 13. With regard to the next contention of Shri J. P. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, that it is the case of the Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 7, that the compensation for the land in fact is being paid by the Respondent no. 4 himself, we find that Section 31(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, clearly provides that the appropriate Government is entitled to sanction an arrangement between the person interested even having a limited interest to be accommodated in an alternate land upon some conditions. Once the right to enter into such arrangements can be derived from the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, whether such arrangement is justified or not is a matter we cannot go into in a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is malafide and in colourable exercise of power. In fact, such arrangement has not been challenged by the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition. In fact, such arrangement has not been challenged by the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition. The arrangements arrived at by the appropriate Government can also be drawn from the observations of this Court whilst disposing of Writ Petition no. 634 of 2007, wherein this Court has directed the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to dispossess the Respondent no. 4 unless he is rehabilitated. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the Petitioner that the land cannot be acquired for the purpose of rehabilitating a displaced person cannot be accepted. 14. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the land which the Respondent no. 4 is otherwise occupying is being acquired for a public purpose i.e. to construct a road in the Village which is within the scheme of planned development in the Village. The said 'public purpose' in fact has not been challenged by the Petitioner. In order to satisfy such public purpose, in case the appropriate Government has to acquire land for rehabilitation of a displaced person, we find that said exercise on the part of such Government cannot be said to be without any authority of law. Considering the said provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, we find that the contention of Shri J. Supekar, learned Counsel, that the act on the part of the appropriate Government is a malafide exercise, deserves to be rejected. 15. With regard to the contention of Shri J. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that the occupation of the Petitioner itself is illegal in the property surveyed under no. 1/2 and the regularisation of the encroachment is contrary to the provisions of Code of Communidade, we find that the Petitioner is always at liberty to file appropriate proceedings if they are so entitled in accordance with law on that count. Such actions cannot be challenged directly by filing a Writ Petition when there are already Orders passed by the Courts with that regard. In such circumstances, the challenge of the Petitioners on the ground that the provisions of the Code of Communidade has not been complied with are not at all considered by this Court whilst deciding the Petition and are left open. The Petitioners may file such proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law. 16. In such circumstances, the challenge of the Petitioners on the ground that the provisions of the Code of Communidade has not been complied with are not at all considered by this Court whilst deciding the Petition and are left open. The Petitioners may file such proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law. 16. At this stage, Shri J. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, seeks protection of limitation with regard to his remedy to challenge the Orders passed in the Civil Suits including the Order passed in Civil Suit no. 135/2002 in appropriate proceedings as, according to him, the Petitioners have acted bonafide and challenged such Orders in the present Petition. The Petitioners can always avail of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if so entitled, to save the period of limitation in accordance with law. 17. Subject to the above, the Petition is rejected. 18. Rule stands discharged. Interim Order, if any, stands vacated.