COMMUNIDADE OF MARGAO, REP. BY ITS ATTORNEY CELESTINO ARTHUR BARRETO E NORONHAversusTHE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF LAND ACQUISITION (CALA) AND 2 ORS

2026:BHC-GOA:1810
                                              (1)                   wp-141-2025.odt



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                               WRIT PETITION NO.141 OF 2025

               Communidade of Margao,
               Represented by its Attorney,
               Mr. Celestino Arthur Barreto e Norohna,
               son of Mr. Luis Noronha, 64 years of age,
               Married, businessman,
               Having its Office at Old Market, Margao, Taluka Salcete,
               Goa, 403601                                      ...PETITIONER

                            VERSUS

               1.    The Competent Authority of Land
                     Acquisition (CALA),
                     PWD (Cell), Altinho, Panaji Goa.

               2.    The State of Goa,
                     through its Chief Secretary,
                     Government of Goa,
                     Secretariat, Porvorim,
                     Bardez Goa.

               3.    Miguel Rosario Cardozo,
                     son of late Domingos Rosario Cardozo,
                     aged 60 years, businessman,
                     Resident of House No.6001/A, Revora,
                     Navelim, Salcete-Goa, 403707             ...RESPONDENTS

                                               …
               Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Divya Parab,
               Advocates for Petitioner.
               Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent
               Nos.1 and 2.
               Mr. C. A. Countinho, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. Shantimano,
               Advocates for Respondent No.3.
                                               …
                                         CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                         DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
               JUDGMENT:-

               1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties,

               matter is heard finally at admission stage.
                               (2)                       wp-141-2025.odt



2.    The petitioner impugns order dated 19.09.2024 passed by

respondent no.1/Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (hereinafter

referred to as ‘CALA’), PWD Cell, Altinho, Panaji, Goa in Proceeding

No.SLAO/NH-17/PWD/F.7/2023-24/01, thereby directing petitioner to

refund of Rs.67,05,076/- compensation amount received by petitioner

vide Award dated 31.10.2018.


3.    The petitioner contends that in June-July 2017 vide Notification

issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3(A) of National Highways Act,

1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’), Land Acquisition

Proceeding was initiated in respect of land bearing Survey No.76/1 Part,

89/6 Part, 212/7 Part, 76/5, 72/7 Part, 212/7 Part, 72/9 Part, 199/4 Part,

72/10 Part, 189/1 Part, 199/1 Part, 187/1 Part, 188 Part, 199/20 Part for

purpose of National Highway No.NH-17 (New NH-66).                          On

31.10.2018, Award No.SLAO-NH17-PWD/7/2018-2019 came to be

passed acquiring area of 1300 sq. mtrs. forming part of 77/7 of village

Navalim, Salcete Taluka belonging to petitioner. The requisite public

notices were issued under Section 3(A) of Act of 1956 to persons

believed to be interested in land calling upon them to appear before

Land Acquisition Officer in person or through agent or legal practitioner

to state nature of respective interest in such land and amount. The

compensation amount in respect of acquired land was worked out to

Rs.3,60,54,206/-. The Award dated 31.10.2018 states that as per Survey
                                (3)                      wp-141-2025.odt



Report and Form-I and XIV, petitioner is one of the occupant alongwith

one tenant in Survey No.72/7 and compensation would be paid after

production of tenancy order issued by respective Mamlatdar. Since

none appeared for hearing before Competent Authority, entire amount of

compensation was kept as revenue deposit for its disbursement on

production of legal document.


4.    The petitioner received total sum of Rs.67,05,076/- as per Award

passed by CALA.         On 11.09.2023, on representation made by

respondent no.3 seeking release of entire compensation amount,

impugned order came to be passed directing petitioner to refund

compensation amount, which is received by him purportedly in exercise

of powers under Section 31(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’).


5.    Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

petitioner would submit that provisions of Act of 2013 do not apply to

acquisition under Act of 1956, particularly in absence of Notification as

contemplated by provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 105 of Act of

2013. He invites attention of this Court to Section 105(1) of Act of

2013, which stipulates that provisions of Act of 2013 would not to apply

to enactments relating to Land Acquisition specified in Fourth Schedule.

He points out that Act of 1956 is enlisted at Serial No.7 in Fourth
                                  (4)                     wp-141-2025.odt



Schedule. Relying upon observations of Division Bench of this Court

in case of Bhupendera Singh Vs. Competent Authority and ors 1, and

Sangita Natwarlal Karwa and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and

Others2, he submits that Competent Authority constituted under Section

3-A of Act of 1956 has no jurisdiction to make any correction or pass

order in the nature of correction of an Award or for that matter amend

Award, once Award has been passed and Authority becomes functus

officio.     In light of aforesaid well settled legal position, impugned

communication directing petitioner to refund amount received under

Award is ultra vires and liable to be quashed and set aside.


6.       Per contra, Mr. C. A. Coutinho, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for respondent no.3 submits that this is not case of correction

or modification of Award passed by Competent Authority. By inviting

attention of this Court to contents of Award, he submits that Award itself

records that as per survey report and Form-I and XIV, Communidade of

Margaon and tenant is occupant in said survey numbers. The tenant

would be paid after production of tenancy order issued by respective

Mamlatdar.          The entire amount of compensation shall be kept as

revenue deposit and shall be paid on production of legal documents. As

such, Award nowhere determines entitlement of either tenant or

occupant to receive compensation, hence, petitioner cannot rest his case

1. (2020) 2 Bom. CR 296

2. (2023) 4 Mh.L.J. 450
                              (5)                       wp-141-2025.odt



relying upon preposition of law espoused in case of Bhupendera Singh

or Sangita Natwarlal Karwa and Another (supra), which lays down

that Competent Authority under Act of 1956 cannot resort to provision

of Section 33 of Act of 2013 for correction of Award.


7.    Mr. Deep Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate

for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that even assuming that impugned

communication/order is illegal, Writ jurisdiction can only be exercised

when such exercise is essential to achieve ends of justice and not

otherwise.     In present case, petitioner had no right to receive

compensation in wake of grant of purchase certificate in favour of

respondent no.3/Tenant as to acquired land. The petitioner could not

have put forth any claim on compensation amount in exclusion of

Tenant’s right and withdraw compensation amount under Award. In this

backdrop, there is no reason to invoke Writ jurisdiction and consider

prayers in this petition.


8.    Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that there is no

dispute as to preposition of law that provisions of Section 33 of Act of

2013 cannot be extended to correct Award declared under provisions of

Act of 1956.      However, Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for petitioner submits that order impugned could not have

been passed by CALA directing refund of compensation amount
                                (6)                      wp-141-2025.odt



received by petitioner/land holder resorting to Section 33 of Act of

2013.


9.      Perusal of Award dated 31.10.2018 passed by Special Land

Acquisition Officer/CALA shows that petitioner or respondent were

absent for hearing under Section 3(E) of Act.        Eventually, right to

receive compensation by occupant or tenant of acquired land has not

been finally adjudicated. The specific observations appearing in Award

so far as it relates to Survey No.72/7 reads thus:

      “As per survey report and Form I and XIV Communidade of
      Margao is one of the occupant and there is one tenant in all
      the said survey Nos. The tenant will be paid after the
      production of Tenancy Order issued by the respective
      Mamlatdar. At the time of hearing under section 3E of the Act
      none of the occupants as well as the tenants remained absent.
      The entire amount of compensation shall be kept as Revenue
      Deposit and shall be paid on production of legal document.
      The entire amount of compensation shall be kept as Revenue
      Deposit and shall be paid on production of legal documents.”

10.     The plain reading of aforesaid paragraphs depicts that Award

merely refers to Form-I and XIV, wherein petitioner is shown as one of

the occupant alongwith their tenant. The right of tenant to receive

compensation was postponed till production of legal documents and

entire amount of compensation was kept as revenue deposit. It appears

that, petitioner claimed 50% of compensation amount by filing

application with Land Acquisition Officer without notice to respondent

no.3/tenant or without informing Land Acquisition Officer regarding

purchase of land by tenant under Agriculture Tenancy Act. Eventually,
                               (7)                         wp-141-2025.odt



petitioner    secured   withdrawal   of   Rs.67,05,076/-    i.e.    50%      of

compensation amount behind back of respondent no.3.


11.   Undisputedly, respondent no.3 approached respondent no.1 for

release of compensation amount in capacity of owner on the basis of

purchase certificate dated 29.11.1993 issued in Tenancy Case

No.TNC/JM-II/PUR/NAVELIM/66/1993, which depicts confirmation

of ownership upon him.        The petitioner did not dispute aforesaid

position. Apparently, petitioner had no right to receive compensation

amount against acquisition of land Survey No.72/7, which is declared in

favour of respondent no.3 under Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and

culminated into his ownership vide purchase certificate dated

29.11.1993.


12.   The aforesaid factual backdrop in unequivocal terms shows that

petitioner has wrongfully withdrawn compensation amount payable to

respondent no.3 without disclosing rights conferred upon tenant vide

purchase certificate dated 29.11.1993. The terms of Land Acquisition

Award passed by CALA nowhere confers any right upon petitioner to

receive compensation being erstwhile owner, which extinguished atleast

upon grant of purchase certificate in favour of respondent no.3 that too

much before passing of Award. The impugned order directing petitioner

to refund amount wrongfully received by him would not in any manner
                                  (8)                         wp-141-2025.odt



amount to modification, correction or review of Award in terms of

Section 33 of Act of 2013.


13.     Although it is argued that impugned order has been passed

referring to Section 31(2) of Act of 2013, such exercise in any manner

does not appear to be in nature of correction of Award. On other hand,

order clarifies that petitioner is directed to refund amount in reference to

paragraph no.34 of Award, which reads thus:

      “34. The interested parties who may receive the compensation
      under the award are given to understand that they will be liable
      under the proviso of section 31(2) of the said Act, to refund the
      said compensation or a portion therefore in the event of any
      other person being adjudged to be lawfully enttile thereto.”

14.     Even it is assumed for sake of argument that impugned order

would amount to correction of Award and direction to refund amount by

CALA is not in consonance with powers conferred under Act of 1956,

this Court finds that in facts of case there is no justification for

interfering in order impugned, particularly in exercise of Writ

jurisdiction of this Court. In case of Bharatiya Seva Samaj Trust and

Another Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and ors.,3 Supreme Court

observed in paragraph no.14 as under:

      “14. It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not
      set aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to
      revive another illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an
      eventuality the illegality would perpetuate and it would put a
      premium to the undeserving party/person.”



3   (2012) 9 SCC 310
                                   (9)                      wp-141-2025.odt



15.      Recently in case of M. S. Sanjay Vs. Indian Bank and ors. 4,

Supreme Court observed in paragraph no.10 as under:

      “10. It has been rightly observed that legal formulations cannot
      be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of
      the case. While administering law it is to be tempered with
      equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right
      the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High
      Court would be failing in its duty if it does not equitable
      consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its
      extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render
      the High Court a normal Court of Appeal, which it is not. It is a
      settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the
      Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given
      case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is
      found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising
      its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it
      with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties.”

16.      Keeping in mind aforesaid exposition of law, this Court finds that

petitioner failed to make out any case for interfering in order impugned,

particularly in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of

Constitution of India.       In result, Writ Petition sans merit.       Hence,

dismissed.


17.      Rule stands discharged.


                                           (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                    JUDGE
Devendra/September-2026




4   2025 SCC OnLine SC 368