Nishat Belwadi vs The State Of Goa Thr. Chief Secretary And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7492 Bom

Bombay High Court

Nishat Belwadi vs The State Of Goa Thr. Chief Secretary And ... on 13 November, 2025

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal

                       8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC




Suchitra



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                    WRIT PETITION NO.285/2025


 NISHAT BELWADI                                         ... PETITIONER

       Versus

 THE STATE OF GOA THR.
 CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR.                               ... RESPONDENTS

                               AND
                   WRIT PETITION NO.1689/2025 (F)

 SITARAM SAWAL                                      ... PETITIONER
       Versus
 THE STATE OF GOA THR.
 CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR.                          ... RESPONDENTS


 Mr B. Sardessai with Mr V. D'Souza, Ms P. Tari and Ms Ashlyn Gomes,
 Advocates for the Petitioners.

 Mr S. Priolkar in (WP 285/2025) and Mr N. Vernekar in (WP
 1689/2025 (F)), Additional Government Advocates for the State.

                   CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                          ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.

                   DATED:      13th NOVEMBER 2025

 P.C.:

1. Both these Petitions are decided by this common order today, because, the nature of the grievance made by both the Petitioners is the same and the subject matter is the same inquiry report of the Chief Secretary (Finance), Government of Goa.

13th November 2025 8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC

2. he main prayers in these petitions are prayer clauses (a). he prayer clause (a) in Writ Petition No.285/2025 iled by the Petitioner Nishat Belwadi is as follows:-

"a) Issue a Writ appropriate order or direction, Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ/Direction as deemed it that the petitioner is not caused any delay and quashing and setting aside the observation/inding made against the petitioner."

he prayer clause (a) in Writ Petition No.1689/2025 (F) iled by the Petitioner Sitaram Sawal is as follows:-

"a) Issue a Writ, appropriate order or direction, Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ/Direction to the Respondent that there is no ineiciencies or procedural lapses on the part of the Petitioner for referring the Land Acquisition case to Reference out, thereby quash and set aside the impugned Inquiry Report dated 09/01/2025 against the petitioner and expunge/exonerate the name of the Petitioner from the List."

3. However, alternatively, in both these Petitions, an amended prayer is included which is similar. Both these Petitions have the amended prayer clause (AA) which is identical and which reads as follows:-

13th November 2025 8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC

"AA. he petitioner prays that payment of the amount attributed to the petitioner in the enquiry report may not be considered as admission on behalf of the petitioner towards the blame for the delay and the enquiry report shall in no manner come in the way of the petitioner or form a claut in the petitioner's service record or hindrance in seniority."

4. Before deciding on the relief that can be granted to the Petitioners in these Petitions, it is necessary to make a reference to the background in which both these Petitions are iled. he subject matter pertains to the properties surveyed under Nos.7/1 and 7/2 of Village Naroa of Bicholim, Goa which was to be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act). One Arunkumar Nigalye preferred a Writ Petition bearing No.899/2024 before this Court. His prayer was for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to make a reference of the dispute in terms of Section 30 of the said Act on the ground that such reference was not made since 2013.

5. he Division Bench of this Court (Coram: M. S. Sonak & Valmiki Menezes, JJ.) vide order dated 30.04.2024 decided Writ Petition No.899/2024. In paragraph 5 of the said order, the extract from the Award dated 30.06.2013 is reproduced, which reads thus:-

"Survey No.7/1P, 7/2P:-

here are 5 Occupants in survey No.7/1 & 1 Occupant & 1 Tenant in Survey no.7/2. During 9 & 10 enquiry one of

13th November 2025 8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC

the Occupant Shri Ajit Vasudev Nigalye and Arun Kumar Nigalye iled claims stating that the area in the said properties Surveyed under above Survey No's is wrongly shown and needs to be corrected. hey requested not to pay compensation to any person till the matter is resolved between the parties mentioned in the said Survey No. As matter seems to be disputed the same is referred to District & Session Court Panaji for decision."

6. Paragraph 6 of the Order passed by the Division Bench mentions that despite the Award, the authorities did not actually bother to make any reference to the District Court, neither was the compensation amount deposited before the District Court as was required under the law. he Division Bench further observed that the authorities were duty-bound to deposit the disputed compensation amount before the District Court and it had to be forwarded with the interest payable in terms of the said Act. Paragraph 9 of the said Order is important which reads thus:-

"9. Since there is no explanation for the delay in making the reference and depositing the compensation amount, we direct the Finance Secretary to inquire into the matter and ix the responsibility on the Oicers responsible for this delay. Because of the delay caused by the Oicers, the State is now required to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Reference Court. he State exchequer is thus burdened with the liability of paying this interest from the public funds. herefore, we think that it will be appropriate that the Finance Secretary hold an inquiry,

13th November 2025 8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC

determine which of the Oicials was responsible for this delay and take steps to recover at least the interest amount from such Oicials. he Finance Secretary must no doubt follow the principles of natural justice and fair play before making such a determination."

7. Pursuant to the said directions, the Chief Secretary conducted an inquiry and prepared a report dated 09.01.2025. he Chief Secretary quantiied the proportionate amount which was to be deposited by the various past oicers holding the post of Special Land Acquisition Oicer. he inquiry report mentions the period of tenure of each of those oicers and the notional interest proportionate to their service that was to be deposited by them. In that table the Petitioner Sitaram Sawal is mentioned at Senior No.11 and the Petitioner Nishat Belwadi is mentioned at Senior No.13. he Petitioner Sawal was posted between the period 01.12.2021 to 23.08.2022 and accordingly he was directed to pay Rs.65,436/-.

he Petitioner Belwadi was posted between the period 24.01.2024 to 04.06.2024 and the amount payable by him was Rs.32,718/-.

8. After this inquiry report was prepared, the State of Goa through its Finance Secretary iled Misc. Civil Application No.147/2025 (F) in Writ Petition No.899/2024 for modiication of the Order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.899/2024.

13th November 2025 8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC

9. Another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Valmiki Menezes & Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.) passed the following Order:

"1. Registry to waive objections and register the matter.

2. By this application, the Applicant State seeks a modiication of Judgment dated 30.04.2024 in Writ Petition No. 899/2024. At para 9 of the said Judgment, we had directed the Finance Secretary to conduct an inquiry and pin the responsibility for gross delays in depositing the compensation due to a claimant in a land acquisition case before the District Court. We had further directed after inquiry was conducted by the Finance Secretary that he was to pin the responsibility of the delay in efecting the deposit and recover the interest component on such delay from the oicer responsible.

3. Pursuant to our directions, the Finance Secretary conducted an inquiry and a list of the responsible oicers is placed before us at para 7 of the inquiry report dated 09.01.2025. he total interest component works out to Rs.9,36,734/-.

4. he application literally seeks the recall of our direction to recover the interest component on the compensation amount, citing the reason that some of the oicers have retired or have expired as the cause for the delay in depositing the compensation before the District Court, during their tenure, was due to administrative and

13th November 2025 8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC

operational constraints making it challenging for these oicers to be aware of the pending matters.

5. Such a reason cannot be countenanced for recalling our order to recover the interest component for the compensation payable. he directions to recover interest were given by us, being mindful that the interest component or the compensation amount would be substantial, since the compensation was required to be deposited way back on 30.06.2013. It is the citizens who have to bear the cost of this negligence and the reasons cited in the application would certainly not be reason enough to recall the directions.

6. Consequently, we reject the application and direct that the Chief Secretary proceed to recover the amount of interest component from the oicers whose names are stated in paragraph 7 of the report preferably within a period of six months from today. he report on the directions to recover the interest component may be placed on record by 30.10.2025.

7. MCA stands disposed of."

10. In view of these clear observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Civil Application No.147/2025 (F) in Writ Petition No.899/2024, we cannot grant relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in both these Petitions. When we made our inclination clear, the learned counsel for the Petitioners did not

13th November 2025 8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC

press the prayer clause (a) and submitted that prayer clause (b) be considered sympathetically.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for consideration of prayer clause (b). he learned counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to certain observations made in the inquiry report. He submitted that the inquiry report itself mentions that it was not the fault of the oicers and there were various other reasons for not making the reference expeditiously. We have considered these submissions and we have already expressed that we cannot go beyond the previous two orders passed by the two Division Benches of this Court. However, the amended prayer clause (AA) can be considered in this case because there are certain observations in the inquiry report itself. It is speciically mentioned in the inquiry report as follows:-

"8. It is pertinent to note that since the passing of the award, a total of 13 oicers have held the position of Special Land Acquisition Oicer (SLAO), highlighting signiicant administrative challenges. Of these, nine oicers were entrusted with the post as an additional charge alongside their primary duties. Also the concerned Upper Division Clerk dealing with said matter in the oice of Special Land Acquisition Oicer retired on 30/04/2013 and thereafter said duties were not assigned to regular clerk till September 2015. his frequent rotation of oicers, retirement of staf and the assignment of multiple responsibilities to individuals underscores the inherent

13th November 2025 8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC

administrative hurdles faced in ensuring continuity and eiciency in the handling of land acquisition matter.

Several oicers have also pointed out operational diiculties that further compounded these challenges. Key issues cited include procedural lapses, such as the non-maintenance of essential ile noting's or proceeding sheets by the staf during the relevant period. hese lapses indicate a systemic issue that preceded the tenure of many oicers and hindered the seamless progression of tasks related to the award process.

Moreover, a number of oicers assumed charge of the SLAO position long after the award had been declared. his temporal disconnect, coupled with the administrative and operational constraints, made it challenging for them to be aware of pending matters. Further, four of the thirteen oicers have since retired from the service, of which one expired too.

hese factors collectively point to ineiciencies, procedural lapses, and administrative challenges that contributed to delays in processing and resolving the matter. he delay caused in depositing the compensation amount with the District Court was unintentional and there was no willful default, nor any malaide intentions were observed on part of the Special Land Acquisition Oicer (SLAO).

13th November 2025 8,19-WP-285-25,1689-25 (F).DOC

9. Considering the submissions of the oicers, their frequent transfers to the post of Special Land Acquisition Oicer, administrative diiculties faced by them and since most of them were holding an additional charge of the Post of SLAO alongside their primary duties, the delay caused in depositing the compensation amount with the District & Session Court Panaji being unwilful and without any malaide intentions, it is proposed for waiver of the recovery of interest of Rs.9,36,734/- from the oicers concerned, subject to the same being accorded approval by the Hon'ble High Court."

12. hough this Court has not allowed waiver of recovery of interest, the above observations can be taken into consideration for grant of relief in terms of prayer clause (AA). hese observations are made in the inquiry report which was prepared pursuant to the directions of this Court. here are clear conclusions in the said inquiry report that the delay caused in depositing the compensation amount to the District Court was unintentional and there was no wilful default or any malaide intentions. he factors collectively point to ineiciencies, procedural lapses and administrative challenges. he inquiry report does not pinpoint to any particular or speciic lapse on behalf of both the Petitioners. here is a reference to the administrative diiculties. Both these Petitioners are already penalized by the directions to deposit the said amounts mentioned against their names. It is clariied that the Petitioners are duty-bound to make the payment referred to in the inquiry report and we are not interfering with that part of the report.

                                   ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.                      SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.





SINGBAL                                                      13th November 2025
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 14/11/2025 14:18:03