SHUBHADA L. KUNDAIKARversusGOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED THR. THEIR MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 2 ORS

                               7-WP-359-2025.DOC




Suchitra



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                     WRIT PETITION NO.359/2025
                                WITH
               MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.677/2026 (F)
                                 IN
                     WRIT PETITION NO.359/2025


 SHUBHADA L. KUNDAIKAR                                … PETITIONER

           Versus

 GOA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE
 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
 LIMITED THR. THEIR MANAGING
 DIRECTOR AND 2 ORS.                                  … RESPONDENTS


 Mr Ajit Kantak, Advocate for the Petitioner.

 Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr Shubham Priolkar,
 Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.


                     CORAM:             VALMIKI MENEZES &
                                        AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

                     DATED:             29th SEPTEMBER 2026

 ORAL ORDER : (Per Valmiki Menezes, J.)


1.         By this Petition the reliefs sought are as follows:

           “A) For a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
           order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
           Constitution of India directing the Respondent No. 1 to 3
           not to carry out any further work in the property of the


                                      Page 1 of 5
                                29th September 2026
                         7-WP-359-2025.DOC




      Petitioner bearing Survey No. 17/1 of the Village of Ela in
      Tiswadi Taluka.

      B) For settling the matter, the Petitioner is entitled to a
      Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to
      compensate the Petitioner only for the land
      utilised/occupied from the property bearing Survey No.
      17/1 of Ela Village at the rate as mentioned in the Deed of
      sale and along with damages of Rs. 49,000/- for the
      demolition of the compound wall of rubble stones of the
      Petitioner which bounded the property of the Petitioner
      towards the road to the length of about 19.00 metres and
      which had a height of about 1.00 metre, broken open the
      concrete by which two gates were ixed to the rubble
      compound as also for the removal of two huge gates that
      were ixed in the compound wall along with the beneits
      available u/s 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition
      Act 1894.”

2.    For deciding this Petition certain facts which are relevant
thereto are recorded below:-

      (a)   he Petitioner claims that he purchased the property
      admeasuring 7425 sq.mtrs., surveyed under No.17/1 of
      Village Ella vide Sale Deed dated 07.11.2005. he Special
      Land Acquisition Oicer (SLAO) issued a notiication
      under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on
      04.11.2006, notifying an area of 474 sq.mtrs. for
      acquisition, in favour of the Goa State Infrastructure

                               Page 2 of 5
                         29th September 2026
                        7-WP-359-2025.DOC




     Development Corporation (GSIDC), for construction of
     an approach road to the Gaundali Bridge. Notiication
     under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to
     be issued on 19.06.2008.

     (b)   Immediately prior to this, the Petitioner completed
     the mutation proceedings and his name was recorded in the
     Survey Records on 13.11.2006. Ultimately, an Award was
     passed on 02.08.2010, in respect of the area of 474 sq.
     mtrs., in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner
     i.e. Mr Stephen A. Pereira. Possession was taken of the
     acquired land on 21.09.2010 under a Certiicate of
     Possession issued by the SLAO.

     (c)   he Petitioner claims that he became aware of the
     land acquisition proceedings only on 09.10.2017, after
     which he iled a Civil Suit on 04.12.2018 seeking therein, a
     decree of declaration that the process of acquiring land
     without notice to him was a nullity. his Suit came to be
     rejected on 04.02.2019, on an application under Order
     VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code after which an
     Appeal iled against the order was also rejected by this
     Court on 09.03.2021. It is only thereafter that the present
     Petition was iled on 08.02.2022 and ultimately registered
     on clearing oice objections in the year 2025.

3.   Having considered all the aforementioned facts, and the
fact that the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was repealed in the
year 2013, we have no option but to dismiss this Petition on the

                               Page 3 of 5
                         29th September 2026
                          7-WP-359-2025.DOC




grounds of delay and laches alone.            he Petitioner had full
knowledge of the fact that the land was acquired and vested in the
State at least from the year 2017, as by then he became fully
aware of the entire proceedings under which the land came to be
acquired.   Nevertheless, the Petitioner iled a Suit seeking a
declaration without seeking any recovery of possession. he Suit
was dismissed, and rightly so, considering the bar on challenge to
the acquisition proceedings.      he land having vested in the
Government way back in the year 2010, when the award was
passed, the possession had been taken and the road having been
constructed in the acquired property, there is no reason why we
should entertain this Petition at this stage.        he Petition is
therefore rejected in limine.

4.    We have taken note of the statement made by the learned
Advocate General on instructions that the awarded amount has
been deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Oicer,
GSIDC, under the Award, which was passed in the favour of the
predecessor in title of the Petitioner Mr Stephen A. Pereira. If the
Petitioner so desires, he may ile an appropriate proceedings
before the SLAO, after impleading the said Mr Stephen A. Pereira
or his successors; the SLAO shall, if such proceedings are iled,
hear the Petitioner and the said Mr Stephen A. Pereira or his
successors and take a decision on whether the Petitioner makes
out a case for entitlement to the awarded amount.

5.    At this stage Mr Kantak, upon instructions, submits that
such proceedings would be iled within two weeks from today. In
the event the proceedings are actually iled, the SLAO shall
                                 Page 4 of 5
                           29th September 2026
                                                            7-WP-359-2025.DOC




                                  dispose of the same after hearing all the parties preferably within a
                                  period of twelve weeks from the date of iling of the proceedings.

                                  6.    he Petition stands disposed of. All pending applications
                                  shall be treated as dismissed after waiving oice objections and
                                  registering the same.


                                   AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.                 VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN                                        Page 5 of 5
SINGBAL                                                     29th September 2026
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 29/09/2026 15:26:43