http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LLEWELLYN FURTADO AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF GOA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/09/1997

BENCH: A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This Civil  Appeal Calls  in question  an order  of the Bombay High  Court in  Writ Petition No. 427 of 1993 decided on 24th August, 1993. The impugned order reads thus:-      "Rejected.      We do  not wish  to  exercise  writ      jurisdiction  in   view  of  return      filed by Land Acquisition Officer."      Mr. Dhruv  Mehta, learned  counsel for  the appellants, submits that  in the  writ petition  filed in the High Court specific allegations  had been  made  that  the  acquisition proceedings were  vitiated on  account of bar of limitation. That it  was averred that the declaration under Section 6 of the Land  Acquisition Act  had been made after the expiry of one year  from the  date of  publication of the Notification under section  4 which  vitiated the  declaration as well as the acquisition.  According  to  the  learned  counsel,  the appellants in  the writ petition had also raised a plea that there was  an unexplained and unreasonable gap of almost one year between  the date  of the  first  publication  of  that Notification in the official gazette later on and keeping in view the  fact that emergency provisions under Section 17 of the Land  Acquisition Act  had been  invoked, that gap would defeat the  very intention of the Amendment made in 1984. It was pointed  out that  in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in the High Court no specific reply was given to these averments  in the writ petition but the Division Bench of the  High Court  did not  examine that aspect of the case and  therefore   judgement  of  the  High  Court  cannot  be sustained.      We find force in the submission of the learned counsel. The High  Court simply  dismissed the Writ petition "In view of return  filed by  land acquisition Officer". We have been unable to  appreciate as  to what circumstances weighed with the High  Court to  dismiss the  writ  petition  in  limine. Since, in  the return filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, factual averments  were not  controverted, their  effect was required to be considered by the High Court. No reasons have been given and this Court has been deprived from testing the reasons which  might have  weighed with the High Court while

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

rejecting the  writ petition  in liminie. Obligation to give reasons introduces  clarity and  excludes  or  at  any  rate minimises the  chances  of  arbitrariness.  Since,  arguable points had  been raised  in the  writ  petition,  the  Bench should have  given some reasons, howsoever brief, in support of its  order. To  say the  least it  was an  unsatisfactory manner of disposal of the writ petition. We, therefore, find that the  impugned order cannot be sustained and accept this appeal. We  set aside  the impugned  order of the High Court dated 24th  August, 1993  and remand  the case  to the  High court for  its fresh  disposal in  accordance with  law. We, request the  Hon’ble the  Chief Justice of the High Court to have the  petition placed  before a  Division Bench  for  an early disposal.      This Court  had granted  an  order  of  status  quo  as regards possession only on 14th February, 1994. That interim direction shall  continue to  remain in  operation till  the writ petition is disposed of.      We clarify  that  nothing  said  hereinabove  shall  be construed as  any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.      The appeal  is allowed in the terms indicated above. No costs.