{"id":144295,"date":"1997-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997"},"modified":"2016-02-10T05:27:45","modified_gmt":"2016-02-09T23:57:45","slug":"eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997","title":{"rendered":"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: K Venkataswami.<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Anand, K. Venkataswami<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nEUGENIO MISQUITA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF GOA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/09\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nA.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nK. Venkataswami. J.\n<\/p>\n
     Though before  the High  Court of\tBombay. Panaji Bench
\n(Goa) three  questions were  raised and\t answered, before us
\nlearned counsel\t for the appellants confined the argument to
\none of\tthe questions  raised before the High Court, namely,
\nwhether\t the   declaration  made\/published  under  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act,  1894 (hereinafter  called the\t `Act’)\t was
\nbarred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
     To appreciate  the above  question, certain   dates are
\nnecessary. Initially  a Notification  under Section  4(1) of
\nthe Act\t for  acquiring\t land  for  construction  and  black
\ntopping of  St.\t Sebastian  Chapel  Road  was  published  on
\n8.11.90. That  Notification  lapsed  as\t no  declaration  as
\nrequired under\tSection 6 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of
\n1984 was  made. Therefore,  a fresh  Notification  was\tmade
\nunder Section  4(1) of\tthe Act\t for  the  same\t purpose  on
\n23.6.92. The  said Notification under Section 4(1) was first
\npublished in  the English  daily “O Heraldo” on 29.6.92, and
\nin the\tMarathi daily  “Nav Prabha” on 2.7.92. Public Notice
\nin the\tlocality of  the Notification was given on 8.7.92 as
\nrequired  under\t Section  4  of\t the  Act.  Lastly,  it\t was
\npublished in  the Official  Gazette of the Goa Government on
\n6.8.;92. Immediately  the validity  of the said Notification
\nwas  challenged\t in  Writ  Petition  No.436\/92\tas  “urgency
\nprovision” under  Section 17(4) of the Act was also invoked.
\nThe High  Court allowed\t the Writ  Petition on\t25.11.92  by
\ndirecting the  appellants (  writ  petitioners\tbefore\tHigh
\nCourt) to  file their  objections under\t Section  5A  on  or
\nbefore 4.12.92\tand directing  the respondents to decide the
\nsaid objections\t on or\tbefore 18.12.92\t after\thearing\t the
\naggrieved parties.  After complying  with the  directions of
\nthe High Court, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
\nmade on\t 3.8.93 and it was published in the Official Gazette
\non 5.8.93.  The same  declaration was  published in  Marathi
\ndaily “Gomantak” on 6.8.93 and in the English daily “Navhind
\nTimes”\ton   7.8.93  respectively.   Public  Notice  of\t the
\ndeclaration was\t given in  the locality\t on  28.8.93.  Under
\nthese circumstances,  the appellants challenged the validity
\nof the\tdeclaration under  Section 6  on the ground that the
\npublication of\tthe declaration\t was beyond  one year taking
\n28.8.93 as  the date  of  publication  and,  therefore,\t the
\nacquisition proceedings had lapsed.\n<\/p>\n
     The contention  advanced on  behalf of  the  appellants
\nbefore the  High Court\twas that  on a correct understanding
\nand interpretation  of Section\t6(1) &\t(2), of the Act, the
\ndeclaration must  be taken  to have  been made\/published for
\nthe purpose  of proviso\t to Section  6(a)(ii) on the date on
\nwhich the  last in  the series of publications under Section
\n6(2) was  published. In\t this case, it was in 28.8.93. If so
\nunderstood on  the facts  of this  case,  according  to\t the
\nappellants, the\t declaration having  been published  in\t the
\nlocality on  28.8.93 it was beyond one year prescribed under
\nproviso to  Section 6(1)(ii)  of the  Act.  Therefore,\tthat
\ndeclaration was\t barred by limitation. On the other hand, it
\nwas contended  before  the  High  Court\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nauthorities that  under Section\t 6(1) the  relevant date for
\nthe  purpose  of  limitation  was  the\tdate  on  which\t the
\ndeclaration was\t made and  that declaration having been made
\non 3.8.93  was\twell  within  one  year\t from  the  date  of
\nNotification  published\t  under\t Section  4(1),\t namely,  on
\n6.8.92. The  High Court in the light of the earlier Division
\nBench judgment of the same Court held as followed:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Applying the  ratio of  these  two
\n     decisions, it is clear that Section
\n     4\tNotification  was  published  in
\n     Government Gazette\t on  6th  August
\n     1992 and  in fact that was the last
\n     of such  publications.  3rd  August
\n     1993 and  it is  common ground that
\n     it was  published in the Government
\n     Gazette on\t 5th August 1993. It is,
\n     therefore, clear  that regard being
\n     had to  the date  of making  of the
\n     declaration under\tSection 6, which
\n     is 3rd August 1993, it falls within
\n     the  limitation   prescribed   and,
\n     therefore, it  cannot be  held that
\n     the publication  of the declaration
\n     is\t   outside     the    limitation
\n     prescribed under the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr. Dhruv\tMehta, learned\tcounsel for  the appellants,
\nelaborately argued the matter bringing to our notice several
\njudgments of  the High\tCourt and of this Court both for and
\nagainst the  appellants. In  short, the\t argument of learned
\ncounsel for  the appellants  was that  having regard  to the
\nlanguage employed  in sub-section  (2) of  Section 6  of the
\nAct, the  last in the series of publication must be taken as
\nthe last  in the  series of publication must be taken as the
\ndate  of   publication\tfor   calculating   the\t  limitation
\nprescribed under  proviso to  Section 6(1)(ii)\tof the\tAct.
\nAccording to learned counsel, the purpose of introducing the
\nlimitation of  one year\t by Act\t 68 of\t1984 was to make the
\nofficials concerned to speed up the proceedings and to avoid
\nthe delay. This object, according to him, cannot be achieved
\nunless the  construction of  Section 6 as advanced by him is
\naccepted. He  heavily  placed  reliance\t on  a\tjudgment  on
\nRajasthan High\tCourt in Jagrup Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n& Ors.\t_ AIR  1993 Rajasthan  157. He\talso brought  to our
\nnotice, in  all fairness,  a recent  judgment of  this Court
\nreported in  Krishi Utpadan  Mandi Samiti & Anr. Vs. Makrand
\nSingh &\t Ors. –\t (1995)2 SCC  497, which  holds against\t the
\ncontention now\tadvanced by  the learned  counsel.  He\talso
\nbrought to  our notice\ta decision  of the Kerala High Court
\nwhich is also against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     We would have dealt with the matter elaborately but for
\nthe recent  judgment of\t this Court in Krishi Mandi Samiti’s
\ncase (supra),  which is\t directly  on  the  point  answering
\nidentical contentions  raised before  this Court in the said
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
     Still, we\twould like  to give our reasons in brief for
\nreaching the same conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
     Sections 4(1),  6(1) &  (2) and  Section 11-A  read  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Section\t 4.    Publication    of
\n     preliminary notification and powers
\n     of officers thereupon-\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  Whenever  it\tappears\t to  the
\n     appropriate Government that land in
\n     any locality is needed or is likely
\n     to be needed for any public purpose
\n     or for a company, a notification to
\n     that effect  shall be  published in
\n     the official  Gazette  and\t in  two
\n     daily  newspapers\t circulating  in
\n     that locality of which at least one
\n     shall be  in the  regional language
\n     and  the\tCollector  shall   cause
\n     public notice  of the  substance of
\n     such notification\tto be  given  at
\n     convenient\t places\t  in  the   said
\n     locality (the  last of the dates of
\n     such publication  and the giving of
\n     such    public\tnotice,\t   being
\n     hereinafter referred to as the date
\n     of\t  the\t publication   of    the
\n     notification.”\n<\/p>\n
     “Section 6.  Declaration that  land
\n     is required for a public purpose –\n<\/p>\n
     (1) Subject  to  the  provision  of
\n     Part VII  of  this\t Act,  when  the
\n     appropriate      Government      is
\n     satisfied,\t after\tconsidering  the
\n     report, if\t any, made under Section
\n     5-A,  sub-section\t (2),  that  any
\n     particular land  is  needed  for  a
\n     public purpose, or for a company, a
\n     declaration shall\tbe made\t to that
\n     effect under  the\tsignature  of  a
\n     Secretary to  such Government or of
\n     some  officer  duly  authorized  to
\n     certify  its  order  and  different
\n     declarations may  be made from time
\n     to time  in  respect  of  different
\n     parcels of\t any land covered by the
\n     same notification\tunder Section 4,
\n     sub-section (a),  irrespectively of
\n     whether  one  report  of  different
\n     reports  has   or\thave  been  made
\n     (wherever required)  under\t Section
\n     5-A, sub-section (2):\n<\/p>\n
     Provided  that  no\t declaration  in
\n     respect  of   any\tparticular  land
\n     covered  by  a  notification  under
\n     Section 4. sub-section (1),-\n<\/p>\n
     (i)     published\t   after     the\n     commencement    of\t    the\t    Land\n     Acquisition     (Amendment\t     and\n<\/pre>\n
     Validation) Ordinance,  1967 (1  of
\n     1967), but\t before the commencement
\n     of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)
\n     Act, 1984,\t shall be made after the
\n     expiry of three years from the date
\n     of the publication; or\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)    published\t   after     the
\n     commencement    of\t    the\t    Land
\n     Acquisition (Amendment)  Act, 1984,
\n     shall be  made after  the expiry of
\n     one  year\tfrom  the  date\t of  the
\n     publication of the notification:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided  further\t that  no   such
\n     declaration shall\tbe  made  unless
\n     the compensation  to be awarded for
\n     such property  is\tto  be\tpaid  by
\n     company, or wholly or partly out of
\n     public  revenues\tor   some   fund
\n     controlled or  managed by\ta  local
\n     authority.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation 1 – In computing any of
\n     the  periods  referred  to\t in  the
\n     first proviso,  the  period  during
\n     which any\taction or  proceeding to
\n     be\t taken\t in  pursuance\t of  the
\n     notification issued  under\t Section
\n     4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an
\n     order of a court small be excluded.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation   2\t–   Where    the
\n     compensation to be awarded for such
\n     property is  to be\t paid out of the
\n     funds of  a  corporation  owned  or
\n     controlled\t by   the  State,   such
\n     compensation shall\t be deemed to be
\n     compensation  paid\t out  of  public
\n     revenues.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  Every\t  declaration  shall  be
\n     published in  the Official gazette,
\n     and   in\ttwo   daily   newspapers
\n     circulating  in   the  locality  in
\n     which the\tland is situate of which
\n     at\t least\t one  shall  be\t in  the
\n     regional\t language,    and    the
\n     Collector shall cause public notice
\n     of\t  the\t substance    of    such
\n     declaration   to\t be   given   at
\n     convenient\t places\t  in  the   said
\n     locality (the  last of the dates of
\n     such publication  and the giving of
\n     such    public\tnotice,\t   being
\n     hereinafter referred to as the date
\n     of\t  the\t publication   of    the
\n     declaration), and\tsuch declaration
\n     shall state  the district\tor other
\n     territorial division  in which  the
\n     land is  situate, the  purpose  for
\n     which it is needed, its approximate
\n     area, and,\t where a plan shall have
\n     been made\tof the\tland, the  place
\n     where such plan may be inspected.”\n<\/p>\n
     “Section 11-A – Period within which
\n     an award shall be made –\n<\/p>\n
     The Collector  shall make\tan award
\n     under Section 11 within a period of
\n     two years\tfrom  the  date\t of  the
\n     publication of  the declaration and
\n     if no  award is  made  within  that
\n     period, the  entire proceedings for
\n     the acquisition  of the  land shall
\n     lapse:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that  in a  case where the
\n     said declaration has been published
\n     before the commencement of the Land
\n     Acquisition (Amendment)  Act, 1984,
\n     the award\tshall be  made within  a
\n     period  of\t  two  years  from  such
\n     commencement.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation  –   In  computing  the
\n     period of\ttwo years referred to in
\n     this  section,  the  period  during
\n     which any\taction or proceeding  to
\n     be taken  in pursuance  of the said
\n     declaration is  stayed by\tan order
\n     of a court shall be excluded.”\n<\/p>\n
     It is  now well  settled that  the last of the dates in
\nthe series  of the  publications made under Section 4 (1) of
\nthe Act is the relevant date to reckon the starting point of
\nlimitation for\tthe purpose of proviso to Section 6(1) (ii).
\nNow, the  question is  which is\t the relevant date to reckon
\nthe last  date for  the purpose\t of proviso  to Section\t (1)\n<\/p>\n
(ii). In  other words,\twhether\t the  modes  of\t publication
\nprescribed under  Section 6(2)\tobviously for the purpose of
\nreckoning limitation  under Section 11-A of the Act have any
\npart  to   play\t in  the  matter  of  computing\t the  period
\nprescribed under proviso to Section 6(1)(ii).\n<\/p>\n
     According\tto   the  learned  counsel,  the  limitation
\nprescribed under  proviso to  Section  6(1)(ii)\t has  to  be
\nconstrued with\treverence to  the different dates \/ modes of
\npublication prescribed\tunder Section  6(2) of\tthe Act.  In
\nsupport of  this submission,  learned counsel  refers to the
\njudgments of  this Court rendered on Section 4(1) of the Act
\nholding that  the last\tof the\tdates of such publication in
\nthe series  is the relevant date for computing the period of
\nlimitation under proviso to Section 6(1) (ii).\n<\/p>\n
     Let us  examine whether the learned counsel is right in
\nhis submission.\t As seen from the above extracts of relevant
\nprovisions,  while  Section  4(1)  commands  publication  of
\nnotification under  that Section.  Section 6  speaks of\t the
\ndeclaration being  made to  the effect\tthat any  particular
\nland is\t needed for  public purpose  or for a company. There
\nare judicial decisions that have interpreted the word `made’
\nto  mean   `published’\tfor  the  reasons  stated  in  those
\ndecisions.  Therefore,\tstrictly  speaking,  but  for  those
\ndecisions.  Therefore,\tstrictly  speaking,  but  for  those
\njudicial decisions  the date  of making\t of the\t declaration
\nunder Section  6(1) will  be the relevant date for reckoning
\nthe period  of\tlimitation.  However,  in  the\tinterest  of
\ngeneral public,\t the courts  have taken\t the view  that\t the
\ndeclaration made  will stand  accomplished only\t when it  is
\npublished. This\t publication has,  therefore, nothing  to do
\nwith the  publication referred to in Section 6(2) of the Act
\nwhich is  for a different purpose, inter alia, for reckoning
\nthe limitation\tprescribed under  Section 11-A\tof the\tAct.
\nThis construction  is supported\t by the language employed in
\nSection\t 6(2)\tof  the\t  Act.\tIn   particular,  the\tword
\n“hereinafter” used in Section 6(2) will amply prove that the
\nlast of\t the series  of the  publication referred  to  under
\nSection 6(2) is relevant for the purposes coming thereafter,
\nnamely, for  making award  under Section  11-A. The language
\nemployed in  second proviso  to Section\t 6 (1) also supports
\nthis construction.  Therefore,\tthe  contention\t of  learned
\ncounsel cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     This is  also the\tview taken  by this  Court in Krishi
\nUtpadan Mandi  Samiti’s case.  The learned Judges framed the
\nquestion thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The question,  therefore, is  that
\n     which date\t of the\t publications in
\n     three steps i.e. publication in the
\n     Gazette, two  newspapers and  local
\n     publication to be the last date for
\n     the  purpose   of\tcomputing  three
\n     years  limitation\t prescribed   in
\n     clause  (1)   of  the   proviso  to
\n     Section 6(1) of the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It may  be noted  that this  Court\t in  that  case\t was
\nconsidering a  case which arose before the coming into force
\nof the\tAmending Act 68 of 1984. The case on hand has arisen
\nafter the  Amending Act\t 68 of\t1984. The  case on  hand has
\narisen\tafter\tthe  Amending  Act  68\tof  1984.  The\tonly
\ndifference is  the  period  of\tlimitation:  for  the  cases
\narising before\tthe Amending  Act it was three years and one
\nyear  for   the\t cases\t arising  after\t the  Amending\tAct.
\nOtherwise, the\tprinciple is  the same.\t The learned  Judges
\nafter referring to the relevant provisions observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The question,  therefore, is  that
\n     which date\t of the\t publications in
\n     three steps i.e. publication in the
\n     Gazette, two  newspapers and  local
\n     publication to be the last date for
\n     the  purpose   of\tcomputing  three
\n     years  limitation\t prescribed   in
\n     Clause  (i)   of  the   proviso  to
\n     Section  6(1)  of\tthe  Act.  Prima
\n     facie, it\tgives an impression that
\n     the last  of any of the three steps
\n     puts  in  motion,\tthe  running  of
\n     limitation of three years.
\n     ……………………………..
\n     …………………….
\n     So it  is necessary  to  understand
\n     the scheme and policy of the Act to
\n     get the crux of the question.
\n     ……………………………..
\n     …………………….
\n     It would  be seen\tthat the purpose
\n     of notification  under Section 4(1)
\n     is an  intimation to  the owner  or
\n     person having  an interest\t in  the
\n     land that\tGovernment exercised the
\n     power of eminent domain in relation
\n     to his  land and for public purpose
\n     his land  is needed or likely to be
\n     needed:  puts  an\tembargo\t on  his
\n     freedom to deal with the land as an
\n     unencumbered land and also pegs the
\n     price of  the land prevailing as on
\n     that date.\t It also  is a caveat to
\n     the Collector  to\tmake  the  award
\n     under Section  11\tas  well  as  to
\n     determine\t  the\t market\t   value
\n     prevailing as  on the  last of  the
\n     dates to  be the date and the award
\n     should  be\t made  within  a  period
\n     prescribed by  Section  11-A,  lest
\n     the entire\t acquisition shall stand
\n     lapsed. The  word `hereinafter’  is
\n     for such  purposes as  well as  for
\n     the purpose of determination of the
\n     compensation under\t Chapter III  of
\n     the Act  as  well.\t Therefore,  the
\n     word hereinafter referred to as the
\n     last date of the publication of the
\n     notification is the date from which
\n     the prevailing  prices of\tthe land
\n     is to be computed etc.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ……………………………..
\n     ……………………………..
\n     ……………………………..
\n     ……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The last  date under  Section  6(2)
\n     shall be  the date for the purposes
\n     “hereinafter referred  to” would be
\n     not for  computing\t the  period  of
\n     three years  prescribed  in  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) if  proviso to\t Section 6(1) of
\n     the Act as it was already done. But
\n     purposes\t  to\t be\tfollowed
\n     hereinafter.   Otherwise\tlanguage
\n     would   have   been   “hereinbefore
\n     done”. Sub-section\t (2) as such did
\n     not prescribe any limitation within
\n     which the declaration under Section
\n     6(1) or  other steps hereinafter to
\n     be taken, in other words, the steps
\n     to be  taken thereafter  in  making
\n     the award\tunder Section  11 or  in
\n     computation    of\t   the\t  period
\n     prescribed\t in  Section  11-A.  The
\n     publication of  the declaration  in
\n     two   daily    newspapers\t  having
\n     circulation in  the locality one of
\n     which is  in the  regional language
\n     and   the\t  publication\tof   the
\n     substance of the declaration in the
\n     locality are  ministerial acts  and
\n     is a  procedural part.  It\t appears
\n     that   these    publications    are
\n     required to  be done  to  make  the
\n     declaration   published\tin   the
\n     manner, to\t be conclusive\tevidence
\n     of the public purpose under Section
\n     6(1) and also to provide limitation
\n     to make the award under Section 11-
\n     A is  for the purpose of making the
\n     award and if the Collector fails to
\n     do so,  the entire\t proceeds  under
\n     Sections 4(1)  and 6(1) shall stand
\n     lapsed. If\t this consistent  policy
\n     of the  Act  is  understood  giving
\n     teeth to  the operational\tefficacy
\n     to the scheme of the Act and public
\n     purpose the  Act seeks to serve, we
\n     are of  the  considered  view  that
\n     publication in the Official Gazette
\n     already made  under clause\t (i)  of
\n     proviso  to   sub-section\t(1)   of
\n     Section 6\tis complete,  as soon as
\n     the declaration  under Section 6(1)
\n     was  published   in  the\tOfficial
\n     Gazette. That  will be the date for
\n     the purpose of computation of three
\n     years period  from the  last of the
\n     dates of  the  publication\t of  the
\n     notification  under  Section  4(1).
\n     The  procedural   ministerial  acts
\n     prescribed\t under\tsub-section  (2)
\n     are only  for the\tpurpose\t of  the
\n     procedure\t  to\t be\tfollowed
\n     `hereinafter’, in\tother words, the
\n     steps to be taken subsequent to the
\n     publication  of   the   declaration
\n     under Section  6(1) of  the Act. We
\n     cannot agree  with Shri  Rana,  the
\n     learned Senior  Counsel,  that  the
\n     date of  making the  declaration by
\n     the Secretary  to the Government or
\n     the authorised  officer is the date
\n     for  computing   period  of   three
\n     years.  Equally,  we  cannot  agree
\n     with the  learned counsel\tfor  the
\n     respondents,  Shri\t Upadhyay,  that
\n     publication of  the substance being
\n     the last date from which the period
\n     of\t three\t years\t needs\t to   be
\n     computed.\tAcceptance   of\t  either
\n     contention would  easily defeat the
\n     public  policy  under  the\t Act  by
\n     skilful manner  of management  with
\n     the lower level officials.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Lt.  K. Padmadas  Vs. State  of Kerala\t& Ors. – AIR
\n1992 Kerala  158, a  Division Bench of the Kerala High Court
\nwhile answering an identical question held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “In this  view of\tthe matter,  the
\n     last date\tof publication envisaged
\n     by S.4(1)\tis 28.6.1989.  Being so,
\n     the order\tof the\tBoard of Revenue
\n     made on 30.4.90 and the declaration
\n     under S.6\tpublished in the gazette
\n     on 29.5.1990  are within the period
\n     prescribed by  the first proviso to
\n     sub-section (1) of S.6, namely, one
\n     year from\tthe date  of publication
\n     of the notification under S.4(1).
\n     The question  then\t arises\t whether
\n     all the  requirements  of\ta  valid
\n     declaration as  laid down\tin  sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     section   (2)    of   S.6,\t  namely
\n     publication in two daily newspapers
\n     and in the official gazette and the
\n     giving  of\t public\t notice\t in  the
\n     locality should  be  complied  with
\n     within  the  period  prescribed  in
\n     sub-s. (7).  It is\t stated that the
\n     sub-section  defines  the\tdate  of
\n     publication of  the declaration  as
\n     the  last\t of  the  dates\t of  the
\n     publication in  the gazette and the
\n     newspapers and the giving of public
\n     notice and therefore unless all the
\n     publications and  the public notice
\n     fall within  the one  year\t period,
\n     the bar  of the  first provision to
\n     S.6(1) operates. The publication in
\n     the gazette was on 29.5.1990 and in
\n     the Kerala\t Times\tand  Mathrubhumi
\n     dailies on\t 29.5.1990 and\t4.6.1990
\n     respectively. The counter-affidavit
\n     of the  third respondent  does  not
\n     disclose as  to when  public notice
\n     was given in the locality.
\n     We must  even at the outset mention
\n     that a  plea in  this form\t has not
\n     been put  forward\tat  the\t earlier
\n     stages. The  contention before  the
\n     learned Single  Judge  (as\t evident
\n     from paragraph  7 of  his judgment)
\n     was that  the declaration under S.6
\n     should have  been made  within  one
\n     year  of  the  publication\t in  the
\n     newspapers. The respondents did not
\n     therefore have  any opportunity  of
\n     meeting  the  present  case  or  of
\n     placing before  court the necessary
\n     details regarding the public notice
\n     of the declaration in the locality.
\n     We\t need\tnot  however   rest  our
\n     decision on  this point  as we  are
\n     even otherwise  of the opinion that
\n     the declaration  under S.6\t was  in
\n     time, in  view of\tthe publications
\n     effected on 29.5.1990.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Sub-section (2) of S.6 reads:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “Every   declaration    shall    be
\n     published in  the Official Gazette,
\n     and   in\ttwo   daily   newspapers
\n     circulating  in   the  locality  in
\n     which the\tland is situate of which
\n     at\t least\t one  shall  be\t in  the
\n     regional\t language,    and    the
\n     Collector shall cause public notice
\n     of\t  the\t substance    of    such
\n     declaration   to\t be   given   at
\n     convenient\t places\t  in  the   said
\n     locality (the  last of the dates of
\n     such publication  and the giving of
\n     such    public\tnotice,\t   being
\n     hereinafter referred to as the date
\n     of\t  the\t publication   of    the
\n     declaration), and\tsuch declaration
\n     shall state  the district\tor other
\n     territorial division  in which  the
\n     land is  situate, the  purpose  for
\n     which it is needed, its approximate
\n     area, and,\t where a plan shall have
\n     been made\tof the\tland, the  place
\n     where such plan may be inspected.”
\n     It is evident from the parenthesis,
\n     which   is\t  relevant,   that   any
\n     reference\t in    the    subsequent
\n     provisions of  the Act, to the date
\n     of publication  of the declarations
\n     is to  be taken  as the last of the
\n     dates of publication and the giving
\n     of public\tnotice. The  use of  the
\n     expression\t “hereinafter\treferred
\n     to”  makes\t  it  clear   that   the
\n     definition\t of  the  last\tdate  of
\n     publication is  for the  purpose of
\n     the subsequent  provisions\t of  the
\n     Act. It  is not possible to project
\n     it back  for the  purpose of sub-s.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a).  The\t High  Court  of  Andhra
\n     Pradesh had  taken the same view in
\n     (1991) 2  Andh LT\t(Notes on Recent
\n     Cases)  page   41(2)  between   the
\n     Executive Officer.\t T.T.D. Vs. N.S.
\n     Venugopal (to  which one of us, the
\n     Chief Justice, was a party). We are
\n     in agreement  with this  view.  The
\n     publication of  the declaration  in
\n     the   gazette   on\t  29.5.1990   is
\n     therefore\t within\t   the\t  period
\n     prescribed by  sub-section (1)  and
\n     therefore the  proceedings are  not
\n     vitiated in any manner.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Undoubtedly, the  judgment of  Rajasthan High  Court in
\nJagrup Singh  (supra) supports\tthe contention raised by the
\nlearned counsel\t for the  appellants. A learned Single Judge
\nof the\tHigh Court  differing with  the view  taken  by\t the
\nKerala High Court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Thus,  viewing   from  any  angle,
\n     whether applying  the test of plain
\n     literal dictionary\t meaning to  the
\n     language  used   in  the\tAct  or,
\n     applying the  test of Mischief Rule
\n     of\t interpreting  the  Statute,  or
\n     looking from  the point  of view of
\n     legislative     intention,\t     the
\n     conclusion is irresistible that the
\n     act of  making it\tknown public, in
\n     official manner  and, that\t act has
\n     to be  performed within a period of
\n     one   year\t  from\t the   date   of
\n     notification under\t S.4(1). The act
\n     of making\tdeclaration known in the
\n     official manner has been prescribed
\n     under  S.6(2)   of\t the   Act.  The
\n     principle\tis   well  settled  that
\n     where   any   statutory   provision
\n     provides a\t particular  manner  for
\n     doing particular  act,  then,  that
\n     thing  or\t act  must  be\tdone  in
\n     accordance\t   with\t   the\t  manner
\n     prescribed. Therefore,  the act  of
\n     making  declaration of Government’s
\n     satisfaction  in\tregard\tto   the
\n     requirement of  the particular land
\n     for any  public purpose is complete
\n     only when the same is made known by
\n     publishing the said satisfaction in
\n     the manner prescribed under S.6(2),
\n     for   the\t  purpose   of\t further
\n     proceedings in  the matter\t of land
\n     acquisition, in  terms of the other
\n     provisions of  the Act.  It is only
\n     after  the\t  publication\tof   the
\n     declaration    in\t   the\t  manner
\n     prescribed\t under\tS.6(2)\tthat  it
\n     becomes  a\t  declaration  which  is
\n     conclusive proof  of the  fact that
\n     land is  needed for  public purpose
\n     and it  is\t only  `making\tof  such
\n     declaration’,    which    furnishes
\n     conclusive\t   proof     of\t    such
\n     satisfaction  that\t authorises  the
\n     appropriate Government  to\t acquire
\n     land  in\tthe  manner   thereafter
\n     provided under  the Act. It is only
\n     after making  such declaration that
\n     the  appropriate\tGovernment   can
\n     issue directions  to the  Collector
\n     to take  orders for  acquisition of
\n     land under\t S.7 of\t the Act.  It is
\n     only   after    making   of    such
\n     declaration     which\tincludes
\n     publication  thereof   also,   that
\n     provisions\t  of\tS.11-A\t becomes
\n     effective\t in    suppressing   the
\n     mischief  of   which  it  has  been
\n     enacted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Summing up of aforesaid discussion,
\n     is that making of a declaration u\/s
\n     6(1) within  its ambit includes the
\n     act  of   making  the  document  of
\n     declaration  known\t  or   published
\n     officially.  Sub-sec.  (2)\t of  S.6
\n     provides\tonly\tthe   modes   of
\n     publication of  declaration in  all
\n     the modes\tprescribed under  S.6(2)
\n     has to  be made  within the  period
\n     prescribed under S.6(1).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The learned  Judge of the Rajasthan High Court is right
\nto a  limited extent  when he  observed: `the  conclusion is
\nirresistible that  the act  of `making\tdeclaration’ by\t the
\nappropriate Government\tthat any  particular land  is needed
\nfor public  purpose, include  the act  of  making  it  known
\npublic, in official manner and, that act has to be performed
\nwithin a  period of  one year  from the date of notification
\nunder S.4(1).”\tHowever, the  learned Judge erred in holding
\nthus: “It  is only  after the publication of the declaration
\nin the\tmanner prescribed  under S.6(2)\t that it  becomes  a
\ndeclaration which  is conclusive  proof of the fact that the
\nland is\t needed for public purpose and it is only “making of
\nsuch declaration”,  which furnishes conclusive proof of such
\nsatisfaction”, because\tthere is  nothing in  the Statute to
\nsuggest by publishing in the Official Gazette the `making of
\ndeclaration’ has  not been achieved nor is there anything in
\nthe  Statute   to  show\t  that\tthe  modes  of\tpublications
\nprescribed under  Section 6(2)\tnotwithstanding the  express
\nlanguage used  in that\tSection about  which we have already
\npointed out,  namely, `hereinafter’  those modes also govern
\nthe publication\t at the\t prior stage,  namely, under Section
\n6(1).\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, we  hold that  the judgment of the Rajasthan
\nHigh Court does not correctly lay down the law.\n<\/p>\n
     In State  of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Dayal – (1995)
\n1 SCC 133, this Court had occasion to consider the effect of
\nfailure to  publish the\t substance of  the declaration under
\nSection 6  in the  locality. This Court in that context held
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The purpose  of publication of the
\n     declaration is  to give  effect  to
\n     the conclusiveness of the extent of
\n     the  land\tneeded\tfor  the  public
\n     purpose or\t for a\tcompany as  made
\n     under  Section  6(3)  of  the  Act.
\n     Since  there   is\tan   opportunity
\n     already given  to the  owner of the
\n     land or  persons having interest in
\n     the land  to raise their objections
\n     during the enquiry under Section 5-
\n     A,\t or   otherwise\t  in   case   of
\n     dispensing\t  with\t enquiry   under
\n     Section 5-A  unless they  show  any
\n     grave prejudice  caused to\t them in
\n     non-publication of the substance of
\n     the declaration under Section 6(1),
\n     the   omission   to   publish   the
\n     substance of  the declaration under
\n     Section 6(1)  in the locality would
\n     not  render   the\tdeclaration   of
\n     Section  6\t  invalid.  We\tare  not
\n     intending to  say that  the officer
\n     should   not    comply   with   the
\n     requirement of  law and it is their
\n     duty   to\t  do   it.   But   their
\n     dereliction to  do so  per se  does
\n     not render\t the  declaration  under
\n     Section 6 illegal or invalid.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The above\tview of this Court lends support to the view
\nthat  for   the\t purpose   of  calculating   the  limitation
\nprescribed under  proviso to Section 6(1)(ii), it is not the
\nlast of\t the publication  in the series that should be taken
\ninto account, but the publication that was made in the first
\ninstance under Section 6.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  light of  the law\tlaid down  by this Court, we
\nhave no\t hesitation to\thold that  the declaration published
\nunder Section  6 of the Act was well within one year and the
\nchallenge to  the same has been rightly rejected by the High
\nCourt. However,\t the view  taken in the judgment of the High
\nCourt under appeal that the relevant date for reckoning the
\nperiod of  limitation will  be the  date of  making  of\t the
\ndeclaration under  Section 6, may not be correct. As held in
\nKrishi\tUtpadan\t  Mandi\t Samiti’s   case,  mere\t  making  of
\ndeclaration is\tnot enough.  The making of declaration under
\nSection 6  is complete for the purpose of Proviso to Section
\n6(1)(i) &(ii) when it is published in the official gazette.\n<\/p>\n
     On facts  we have seen that the Notification was lastly
\npublished on  6.8.92 in the Official Gazette and declaration
\nunder Section 6 was published in the Gazette on 5.8.93 which
\nis well within one year. In the result, the appeal fails and
\nthe same is dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997 Author: K Venkataswami. Bench: A.S. Anand, K. Venkataswami PETITIONER: EUGENIO MISQUITA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF GOA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/09\/1997 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nEugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-09T23:57:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-09T23:57:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997\"},\"wordCount\":4721,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997\",\"name\":\"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-09T23:57:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-09T23:57:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997","datePublished":"1997-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-09T23:57:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997"},"wordCount":4721,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997","name":"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-09T23:57:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/eugenio-misquita-ors-vs-state-of-goa-ors-on-29-september-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Eugenio Misquita & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 29 September, 1997"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=144295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}