AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J
Heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. By this petition styled as public interest litigation, the petitioners seek the following reliefs :
That in the facts and circumstances of the case it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to :
a). Make a Declaration that the continued failure of the respondent to acquire land for a Kabristan in Salcete Goa, is unlawful and in breach of Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.
b). Direct that there be a settlement of dispute outside Court, under its powers in section 89 of the CPC 1908 with a defined procedure and within a designated time-frame.
c). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of continuing Mandamus directing the respondent to pass and bring into force an act, or otherwise legislation for providing burial or cremation grounds in the State of Goa.
d). Costs
e). Further or consequential relief as the Honourable Court may see fit.
It is the claim of the petitioners that the respondents have failed to acquire land for Kabristan in Salcete taluka whereby the rights of the Muslim community in Salcete under Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India, have been violated. The foundation of the petition is speeches made by the members of the Legislative Assembly and also minutes of the hearing held before National Commission for Minorities on 25th May, 2010 by which certain directions have been given by the National Commission for Minorities (''NCM'' for short).
On behalf of respondent No. 2, an affidavit has been filed which discloses that in the meeting held on 28th June, 2010, a resolution was passed by respondent No. 2 to submit proposal for acquisition of land admeasuring 30,191 square metres at Sonsodo, Margao for burial ground for all three communities. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Goa has initiated the land acquisition proceedings and award has been passed on 16th May, 2011, and the possession of the land has been handed over to respondent No. 2. The affidavit further discloses that in the meeting held on 12th June, 2011, respondent No. 2 has resolved to modify earlier resolution dated 28th June, 2010 and it has been decided that the land acquired shall be utilized for burial ground for Muslim community only.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the rights of Muslim community under Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India are infringed by inaction of the respondents to provide Kabristan in Salcete taluka. According to the learned Counsel, the land acquired by respondent No. 2 for Kabristan as disclosed in the affidavit is not suitable and as such, appropriate orders be passed.
Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the petition styled as public interest litigation is totally misconceived and has been filed on the basis of the events which have taken place in the year 1999 and 2010 without even verifying that the land has been already acquired by respondent No. 2 for Kabristan. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is not even averment in the petition that the acquired land is not suitable for Kabristan and as such, the petition, which is totally misconceived, is liable to be dismissed.
As stated above, the petition was filed on the ground that there was inaction on the part of the respondents to have Kabristan in Salcete taluka. But the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 clearly discloses that steps have been already taken in that regard by acquisition of land. As such, the main grievance made in the petition does not survive. In so far as the argument of Mr. Mukherjee that the land acquired is not suitable for Kabristan is concerned, we are not inclined to entertain the same in view of the fact that it is not the case of the petitioners in the petition and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to go into this aspect. or the reasons aforesaid, we find that no case has been made out by the petitioners for grant of any relief as prayed by entertaining the petition as public interest litigation. Hence, the petition is dismissed.