Tourism project is public purpose: SC

Acquisition of land for Cidade de Goa project upheld


BY A GT REPORTER

PANJIM: Can the state government use the excuse of ‘public purpose’ to acquire land for a private hotel project? This issue was dealt with extensively by the Supreme Court in the Cidade de Goa case and the verdict is, ‘Yes’.
Of the five issues dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case one was whether the government’s acquisition of over 19,000 square metres of land for the Cidade de Goa hotel project was acquired for ‘public purpose’ or ‘to be used by the public’.
First a little bit of history. In the late 1970s, the present owners of Cidade de Goa acquired two pieces of land. These two pieces were separated by a third piece (the acquired land) in the middle.
However, when attempts to purchase this third piece failed, the owners made a request to the government to acquire the land.
The hotel’s owners indicated to the government that the first phase of it’s project envisages construction of the hotel building and in the second phase it was intending to put up a yoga center, health club and water sports facility which will also be useful to the general public.
Subsequently, the land was acquired and an agreement was signed between the government and the hotel owners.
The notification issued by the then government clearly mentioned that the land was need for public purpose, namely the tourism development project – construction of hotel at Vainguinim, Taleigao.
The question before the court was whether the land was acquired for ‘a public purpose’ under Section 40 (1) (aa) or for the ‘use of the public’ under Section 40 (1) (b).
The Supreme court ruled that, “there is no escape from the conclusion that the acquisition was under Section 40 (1) (aa) of the Act which is public purpose.
More importantly the Supreme Court in its order noted, “It is also necessary to bear in mind that tourism is an important industrial activity in Goa which attracts tourists from all over the country and abroad. A huge amount of foreign exchange is generated by this industry apart from providing employment and ancillary benefits to a large section of the population of the state. Therefore acquisition of land for tourism development project is certainly for public purpose.”

Recreational facilities

Another issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether the recreational facilities and amenities created by the owners of Cidade de Goa in the acquired land was contrary to the purpose of acquisition and is also violative of the agreement and could this be made a ground for resumption of the acquisition of the land?
On this issue the court decided in favour of Cidade de Goa. “The question deserves to be answered in favour of the appellants (Cidade de Goa),” the court noted.
The order stated, “a reading of the application dated 15 November 1978 made by appellate (Cidade) makes it clear that it had no intention of making available the facilities of yoga center, health club, and amenities like water sports to the general public.
“Rather in Para 6 of its application the appellant (Cidade) made it clear that the facilities provided by the hotel will be open for use by non-residents also on membership basis.”
“Therefore it is not possible to agree with Ms Jaising (advocate for Goa Foundation) that the facilities and amenities created by the appellant should be made available to the general public free of cost.”