Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court, in a recent judgement, dismissed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of land for a government guest house in Diu. The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain. The petitioner had sought to quash the acquisition of land, contending that the acquisition lacked public purpose and violated procedural safeguards under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act").

The petitioner, Uday Mansuclal, a 43-year-old supervisor currently residing in the United Kingdom, filed the writ petition against the Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, the Collector of Diu, the Land Acquisition Officer, and the Mamlatdar of Diu. The petition sought judicial review of the acquisition of land bearing No. PTS 122/171-A, measuring 481 square meters, located at Jalandhar Beach, Diu.

Also Read: FIR Instituted With Ulterior Motive Only Because Husband Preferred Divorce Petition: SC Quashes Criminal Case Against Man & His Family

The petitioner's counsel, Ms. Varsha Palav, argued that the acquisition lacked a valid public purpose, as the land was being taken to construct a new government guest house/circuit house, which, she contended, did not qualify as a tourism project under Section 3(za) read with Section 2 of the 2013 Act. The petitioner also contended that the locality already had seven such guest houses, making the additional acquisition redundant.

Further, the petitioner claimed that he had filed objections to the acquisition but was not granted an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 15 of the 2013 Act. He alleged that the respondents had entered into arrangements with private parties to operate guest houses in the locality, undermining the public purpose justification for the acquisition.

The respondents, represented by Mr. Harsh Dedhia, countered that the acquisition was for a legitimate public purpose and complied with the provisions of the 2013 Act. He argued that the petitioner failed to file objections within the prescribed period of 60 days following the Preliminary Notification dated December 6, 2021. The respondents maintained that the acquisition was part of a tourism initiative and that the process had followed all legal requirements, including the conduct of a Social Impact Assessment.

The Division Bench recorded that the acquisition process commenced with a Social Impact Assessment Notification on August 13, 2021, followed by the constitution of a Social Impact Assessment Team on September 2, 2021. The Preliminary Notification under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act was issued on December 6, 2021, stating that 1767 square meters of land were required for constructing a government guest house.

The court noted that the petitioner failed to submit objections within the statutory 60-day period. It observed: "Admittedly, Ms. Palav could not show that the Petitioner had filed objections within this 60-day period. The objections were filed only on 30 March 2022, after the publication of the Declaration dated 29 March 2022 under Section 19(2) of the 2013 Act." Consequently, the petitioner could not claim denial of a hearing.

Regarding public purpose, the court relied on the broad definition under Section 2(1) of the 2013 Act, which includes projects for tourism. The court stated: "The public purpose broadly speaking would include the purpose in which the general interest of the society, as opposed to the particular interest of the individual, is directly and vitally concerned." It further observed that a government guest house serves a public purpose, as government officials may use such facilities during duty-related travel.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Manimegalai v. Special Tehsildar (AIR 2018 SC 2020), stating that public purpose is incapable of precise definition and must be examined based on each case's facts. The court recorded: "The executive would be the best judge to determine whether or not the impugned purpose is a public purpose."

Rejecting the petitioner's contention that the presence of other guest houses negated the public purpose, the court remarked that the government is entitled to determine the necessity of such acquisitions. It held that allegations regarding private party arrangements did not provide sufficient grounds to strike down the acquisition.

Dismissing the petition, the court stated that the acquisition met the legal criteria under the 2013 Act. The court stated: "No malafides are alleged, and no arguments were made alleging malafides. The arguments about several other guest houses in the locality or that the petitioner was himself operating a guest house for the last 35 years are not reasonable enough grounds to strike down acquisition proceedings."

The court concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate procedural violations that would warrant quashing the acquisition. It clarified that the petitioner could pursue compensation-related concerns before the competent authority.

Also Read: Allahabad HC Slams UP Govt For Failing To Take Murder Accused To Hospital For Treatment As Police Force Was Busy In Election Duties

Upon pronouncement of the judgment, the petitioner’s counsel sought an extension of interim relief for four weeks. The court granted the extension despite opposition from the respondents.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioner: Ms. Varsha Palav, Advocate, instructed by The Laureate.

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Dedhia, Advocate, instructed by Mr. Hiten S. Venegavkar

Case Title: Uday Mansuclal v. Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:10825-DB

Case Number: WP-2810 OF 2023

Bench: Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain

[Read/Download order]