Team Herald
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the petitions of Goa Foundation and others, challenging the validity of the law enacted in 2009 by the government to nullify the court’s order to demolish a portion of Cidade de Goa resort at Dona Paula.
“We find no merit in the petitions. We uphold the validity of the amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act,” a bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C Pant said.
On January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court had ordered demolition of the portion of Cidade de Goa which houses 54 rooms besides a health club, conference and business rooms and other facilities, for breach of agreement under which the government had allotted land and allowed construction near the beach under certain conditions, including public access to the beach.
To overcome the court ruling, the then Congress government headed by Digambar Kamat had promulgated an ordinance amending the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to secure powers to modify the agreement to meet the exigencies. The ordinance stated that the amendment shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from October 15, 1964.
The Supreme Court also quashed the contempt petition moved by Goa Foundation against the government for violating its 2009 ruling and did not buy the argument that the law was amended to benefit only Cidade de Goa.
It said, “The amendments insofar as court decrees/orders is concerned, are incidental and consequential provisions to an Amendment Act validating actions that had earlier received judicial disapproval.”
Rejecting the plea that the State amendment violates the Central Act, the Bench said the amendment appear to be really in furtherance of the purpose of the acquisition under the Central law and hence no repugnancy between the two.
It also put on record that it had gone into the minutes of the cabinet meeting on February 24, 2009 on promulgation of the ordinance on February 28 and as such it does not accept the argument that the amendment was intended to benefit a singular entity, as it is “without any basis whatsoever”.
The Bench said, “The cabinet decision clearly indicates that the exercise undertaken was more broad-based than what the petitioners would like us to hold. In fact, there is a detailed reference, by names, in the said cabinet decision to several other groups and corporations who are similarly situated as the third respondent (Cidade de Goa).”
