On or about 10th April, 1981 the Deputy Collector issued numberice to respondent No.
The petition succeeded before the High Court and the numberifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act were quashed.
504 Of 1985 From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench Goa dated the 26th June, 1984, in writ Petition No, 8 of 1984.
The government issued on the 29th October, 1980 numberification in respect of the land in question under section 4 of the Act which was published in the Government Gazette dated 30th October, 1980.
I filed his objections on merit by the letter dated 4th May, 1981.
2 and the appellant herein on the 15th November, 1978 made an application under Chapter 7 of the Act for the acquisition of the said properties.
the government issued numberification under section 6 of the Act which was published in the government Gazette dated 27th October, 1983.
I challenging the said numberifications under sections a and 6 of the Act.
The propriety 1 and validity of the said decision of the High Court are under challenge in this appeal.
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court.
The land owner being respondent No.
1 on 10th of March, 1978.
On 26th October, 1983, agreement was executed between the government and the acquiring companypany that the land in question was needed for the purpose of development of tourism.
Subsequently government held enquiry under section 5A of the Act and the Deputy Collector submitted the report to the Government in March, 1981.
The respondent No.
1 that enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules would be held on 15th April, 1981.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
C. Desai, M.M Abdul Khader, Naunit Lal, Kailash Vasdev, Mrs. Vinod Arya, and Miss A Subhashini for the Respondents.
The original respondent No.
This appeal filed by M s Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited raises the short question as to whether companypliance with rule 4 of the Land Acquisition Companies Rules, 1963 hereinafter called the Rules is necessary before issuing numberifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Zaiwala, Anil B. Divan, Usgaonkar, Ravinder Narain, and Aditia Narayan, for the Appellant.
The petition under Article 226 out of which this appeal arises was filed in the Bombay High Court by respondent No.
1 to this appeal objected to the said numberification under section 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted.
It appears that the land in question was purchased by Gustavo Ranato da Cruz Pinto hereinafter referred to as the land owner and the original respondent No.
