LIEWELLYN FURTADO AND ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF GOA AND ORS.

                   LIEWELL YN FURTADO AND ORS.                                   A
                                v.
                   GOVERNMENT OF GO~ AND ORS.

                           SEPTEMBER l 0, 1997

           [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]                             B


      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

        Ss.4, 6,17-Declaration u/s 6 made after expiry of period prescribed-
';Acquisition challenged in writ petition before High Court-High Court           C
  rejected writ petition in limine-Held, since factual averments were not
  controverted, their effect was required to be considered by the High Court-
  Since arguable points had been raised in the writ petition, High Court
  should have given reasons in support of its order-Matter remitted to High
  Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.                               D
      Constitution of India, 1950 :

       Article 226-Writ petition-Rejected in /imine by High Court-Held,.
 obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate
 minimises the chances of arbitrariness--This Court has been deprived from       E
 testing the reasons which might have weighed with the High Court whiie
 rejecting the writ petition in limine-Matter remitted to High Court for fresh
 disposal in accordance with ?aw.

      qvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 850 of 1994.
                                                                                 F
      From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.93 of the Bombay High Court
at Goa, in W.P. No. 472of1993.

     Dhruv Mehta, S.K. Mehta, Fazlin Anam and Ms. Shobha Verma for the
Appellants.
                                                                                 G
     · Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.

      The following Order of the ~ourt was delivered :

     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      H
                                      53
    54                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   order reads thus:-

            "Rejected.

            We do not wish to exercise writ jurisdiction in view of return filed by
            Land Acquisition Officer.''
B          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
C   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 the
    Notification under Section 4 and the publication of that Notification in the
D   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 averrnents in the writ petition but
    the Division Bench of the High Court did not examine that aspect of the case
E   and therefore judgment 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
F   filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, factual averrnents 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 rejecting the writ petition in
    limine. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any
G   rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Since, argueable 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
H   High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. We, request the
                 LIEWELL YN FURTADO v. GOVT. OF GOA                      SS
Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court to have the petition placed before     A
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.
                                                                               B
     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.

RP.'                                                       Appeal allowed.     C