Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 29 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Shubhada L. Kundaikar; Respondents – Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (GSIDC) and its Managing Director with two others.
  • Reliefs Sought: (A) Writ of Mandamus under Articles 226 & 227 directing Respondents to cease any further work on the petitioner’s property (Survey No. 17/1, Village Ela, Tiswadi Taluka). (B) Compensation for land occupied at the rate specified in the deed of sale plus Rs 49,000 damages for demolition of a 19‑metre long, 1‑metre high rubble‑stone compound wall and removal of two large gates, invoking Sections 23(1‑A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  • Property Background: Petitioner purchased 7,425 sq m of land (Survey No. 17/1, Village Ela) via Sale Deed dated 07‑11‑2005. Mutation completed and recorded on 13‑11‑2006.
  • Acquisition Notices: Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) issued a Section 4 notification on 04‑11‑2006 for acquisition of 474 sq m for an approach road to the Gaundali Bridge; a Section 6 notification followed on 19‑06‑2008.
  • Award & Possession: An award in favour of the predecessor‑in‑title, Mr Stephen A. Pereira, was passed on 02‑08‑2010 for the 474 sq m area. Possession was taken on 21‑09‑2010 under a Certificate of Possession issued by the SLAO.
  • Petitioner’s Awareness & Litigation: Petitioner became aware of the acquisition on 09‑10‑2017 and filed a civil suit on 04‑12‑2018 seeking a declaration that the acquisition without notice was a nullity. The suit was dismissed on 04‑02‑2019 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC; an appeal was dismissed by this Court on 09‑03‑2021. The present writ petition was filed on 08‑02‑2022 and registered after clearing office objections in 2025.
  • Legal Context: The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed in 2013, but the acquisition had already vested in the State in 2010, and the road construction was completed.
  • Court Observations: The Court noted that the petitioner had full knowledge of the acquisition since 2017 and had previously sought a declaration without claiming possession. The petition was dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. The Court emphasized that the land had vested with the Government in 2010, possession was taken, and the road was constructed, leaving no basis to entertain the petition.
  • Further Directions: The Court recorded that the awarded amount has been deposited with the SLAO in favour of Mr Stephen A. Pereira. The petitioner may file appropriate proceedings before the SLAO, impleading Mr Pereira or his successors. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr Ajit Kantak, indicated such proceedings would be filed within two weeks. The SLAO is directed to dispose of the matter, after hearing all parties, preferably within twelve weeks from filing.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed in limine; all pending applications are treated as dismissed after waiving office objections and registering the same. The petitioner may approach the SLAO for the award amount, subject to further proceedings.

Topics: Land Acquisition, Court Order